Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
invention was made to have modified the device of Schwartz to
incorporate the crosslinked molecules as taught by Cook in
order to produce an implant device with improved strength and
durability.
(Answer 6.)
Appellants do not dispute that it would have been obvious to combine
Cook’s crosslinking process with Schwartz’s SIS-containing plug. Rather,
with respect to claims 17 and 117, Appellants argue that Schwartz does not
teach a plug comprising naturally occurring SIS. We have already
considered this argument and found it unpersuasive. The rejection of claim
17 is affirmed. Claim 117 falls with claim 17.
With respect to claim 29, Appellants argue that Schwartz does not
teach an anchor comprising naturally occurring ECM. We agree, and the
Examiner has not explained how Cook makes up for this deficiency. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claim 29.
SUMMARY
The appeal of claims 55, 57, 62-64, 66, 67, 80, 81, 84, 85, 96-100, and
142-152 is dismissed. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-7, 17, 19-23, 33,
42-45, 50-54, 65, 68-75, 77-79, 92-94, 101-107, 117, and 119-123. We
reverse the rejection of claims 24-32, 34, 76, 82, 83, 124-134.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART
dm
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204
16
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: September 9, 2013