Appeal No. 98-2769
Application 08/485,960
based on appellants’ disclosure, without the exercise of undue experimentation.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being directed to a non-enabling disclosure.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 1 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention. Looking first at method claims 1 through 10, we note that
independent claim 1 on appeal purports to relate to “a method for delivering a therapeutic agent through
a body surface from an electrotransport assembly of the type which includes a controller component
and a detachable therapeutic agent source” wherein the method comprises the step of
“adjusting the rate of therapeutic agent delivery by providing a plurality of
therapeutic agent sources in which a single parameter or a series of parameters has
been varied so that in conjunction with said assembly agent delivery rate is selectively
controlled.”
Independent claim 6 sets forth “[a] method for varying drug delivery rate of a therapeutic agent through
a body surface from an electrotransport assembly of the type which includes an
electronic controller and a detachable drug-containing unit having an active electrode” wherein the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007