Appeal No. 2007-0307
Application No. 09733,640
Again, Appellants contend that Lundgren teaches away from the viscous
gels of Brodbeck, stating that Lundgren indicates that compositions lacking
dimensional stability are unsatisfactory for tissue regeneration. Brief, page 12.
Appellants also argue Lundgren teaches away from an injectable composition.
Brief, page 13.
However, the disclosures of Brobeck and Lundgren are not limited to
compositions for tissue regeneration. The examiner finds that Lundgren teaches
adding a small amount of crystalline polymer to amorphous polymer to drastically
reduce the swelling of the material, thus providing motivation to add a crystalline
polymer to increase the mechanical strength of the implant. Answer, page 22. In
our view, the examiner has provided relevant motivation found in the prior art to
combine the cited references.
As indicated above, in relation to the rejection over Lundgren, we do not
agree with appellants that Lundgren teaches away from an injectable composition
(claims 1 and 38). Moreover, with respect to instant claim 38, Brobeck teaches an
injectable composition. With respect to each of claims 1, 34, and 38, we have no
evidence of record establishing that the solvent containing composition of
Lundgren is not injectable.
In view of the above, the rejection of the claims for obviousness over
Brodbeck in view of Lundgren is affirmed.
4. Claims 3-4, 8, 19, 49-50, 54, 57, 59, 61-65, and 68-72 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) over Lundgren in view of Brodbeck.
The same analysis and conclusion can be drawn from the reverse
combination of the cited references. The rejection is affirmed.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013