Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
We agree. Schwartz teaches that “[i]t is critical that the delivery unit
[anchor] 14 be made of a bio-absorbable material (e.g., without ceramics)
such as those well known in the implant art. For example, it is preferably
made of polyglycolic acid, polylactic acid, or combinations thereof”
(Schwartz, col. 10, ll. 36-40). Schwartz does not teach including repair
factors such as SIS in the delivery unit/anchor.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
shown that Schwartz discloses a device meeting the limitations of claim 24.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 24-26, 82, 124-126, 130, and
133 as anticipated by Schwartz. In addition, the claims in Appellants’
Groups V, VI, and VII (claims 30-32, 34, 131, 132, and 134) depend from
either claim 24 or claim 124, which contains the same limitation. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claims 30-32, 34, 131, 132, and 134 as
anticipated by Schwartz.
In summary, we affirm the § 102(e) rejection with respect to claims 1,
2, 7, 19-23, 33, 42-45, 50, 53, 54, 65, 69-75, 77, 101-103, 107, and 119-123,
but reverse it with respect to claims 24-26, 30-32, 34, 82, 124-126, and 130-
134.
4. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 92-94
Claims 92-94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Schwartz. These claims stand or fall together (Br. 19). Claim 92 is an
independent claim directed to a cartilage repair device comprising an anchor
and “a second element having a density different from the density of the
anchor,” and requires the anchor or second element (or both) to be formed
from, e.g., vertebrate SIS. The Examiner argues that Schwartz’s device
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013