Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
would have found it obvious to use vertebrate SIS based on Schwartz’s
teaching of SIS generally.
Appellants argue that claims 3, 4, and 51 are patentable over Schwartz
and Patel for the same reasons that claims 1 and 42 are patentable over
Schwartz alone (Br. 23, 26, 29). These arguments are fully addressed above
in the discussion of Schwartz.
Because “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir.
1983), we affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 51 as obvious in view of
Schwartz and Patel. We also affirm the rejection of claim 4 as obvious
because Schwartz would have made obvious the use of vertebrate SIS.
Claims 5, 6, 52, 68, 78, 79, and 104-106 fall with claims 3, 4, and 51.
However, we reverse the rejection with respect to claims 27, 28, 76, 83, and
127-129.
6. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF SCHWARTZ AND COOK
Claims 17, 29, 66, and 117 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Schwartz and Cook.6 Claim 17 is representative of the
rejected claims. Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and adds the limitation that
the plug is chemically or physically crosslinked.
The Examiner reasons that
Schwartz does not disclose the process of cross-linking. Cook
teaches the process of cross-linking submucosa derived
collagen molecules to produce a graft material with higher
strength. Therefore in view of the teachings it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
6 Claim 66 has been withdrawn from appeal.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013