Appeal 2007-0532 Application 10/828,316 2. OBVIOUSNESS Claims 2, 7, 8, and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Boyce,2 Breitbart,3 and Sander.4 The Examiner relies on Boyce for its disclosure of an “osteoimplant composition comprising bone particles in physiological saline” (Answer 4). The Examiner also notes that Boyce teaches that the composition can contain “chitosan and hydrogels” as well as “bioactive substances” (id.). The Examiner relies on Breitbart for teaching a “bone repair composition comprising cells such as stem cells, chondrocytes and mesenchyma cells,” and relies on Sander for “disclosing a composition suitable for bone repair comprising biocompatible particles dispersed in a matrix” (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare a composition comprising bone particles and bioactive agents having osteoinductive properties such as growth factors to form a bone cement composition as disclosed in the prior art cited” (id.). We agree with the Examiner that the compositions of claims 21, 23, and 26 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the cited references. Boyce discloses a composition for making osteoimplants (col. 4, ll. 26-32). The composition contains bone particles that can be demineralized (col. 5, ll. 37-39) in an amount of “about 5 to about 100 weight percent” (col. 7, ll. 48-50). 2 Boyce, US 6,294,187 B1, Sep. 25, 2001. 3 Breitbart, US 5,700,289, Dec. 23, 1997. 4 Sander, US 5,356,629, Oct. 18, 1994. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013