Appeal No. 2001-0661 3
Application No. 08/480,232
DISCUSSION
1. The anticipation rejection
Looking first at claim 1, this claim is directed to an electrotransport agent delivery
device for delivering an agent through a body surface, wherein the device comprises an
active electrode, a return electrode, circuitry which controls current output of the device,
and a source of electrical energy. The device is further defined as having at least two rigid
regions which are placed against the body surface at spaced apart locations, and flexible
means physically and electronically connecting the rigid regions to one another and
permitting the rigid regions to move independently with respect to each other.
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Sibalis, the examiner relies on the
Figures 14-16 embodiments thereof. The examiner considers that the terms “rigid” and
“flexible” are relative terms and in the absence of specific flexural values can be
considered to have essentially any value desired. The examiner further considers that the
petal configurations of Sibalis would inherently be more rigid at the thicker portions than at
the thinner “hinge” or “web” portions. Based on these considerations, the examiner
concludes that the Figures 14-16 embodiments of Sibalis anticipate the claim.
We appreciate the examiner’s position that the terms “rigid” and “flexible” may be
viewed as being relative terms. We also appreciate the examiner’s position that the
“petal” or main body sections of the Figure 14-16 embodiments of Sibalis would appear to
inherently be more rigid that the unnumbered “hinge” or “web” portions connecting said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007