Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
inherently meets the claim limitations because the plug/insert and the anchor
are composed of different materials and therefore would inherently have
different densities (Answer 5).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Specifically, Schwartz
teaches a device in which the plug/insert, but not the delivery unit/anchor,
comprises repair factors including SIS and cells. Since the plug/insert and
delivery unit/anchor comprise different materials, they would reasonably be
expected to have different densities. This expectation is reinforced by
Schwartz’s description of the delivery unit/anchor as “flexible and
preferably resilient” (Schwartz, col. 10, l. 33) and the plug/insert as a
“porous material in the form of a matrix or sponge” (id. at col. 10, ll. 52-53).
Appellants argue that claim 92 “requires a naturally occurring
bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrix, rather than a naturally occurring
extracellular matrix,” and that Schwartz does not teach a cartilage repair
device comprising such a matrix (Br. 29).
This argument is not persuasive. Appellants’ Specification states that
“[t]he term ‘bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrices’ includes
extracellular matrices’ within its definition” (Specification 16). For the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we conclude that Schwartz
describes a cartilage repair device comprising naturally occurring
extracellular matrix; therefore, it also describes such a device comprising a
naturally occurring bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrix, as required by
claim 92.
We affirm the rejection of claim 92 as anticipated by Schwartz.
Claims 93 and 94 fall with claim 92.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013