Appeal No. 2006-0242
Application No. 09/920,728
line. The pump is operable in response to a detected occlusion
to reverse the drive applied to move the plunger along the barrel
sufficiently to reduce excess force on the medication until the
force created as a result of the occlusion decreases to a
predetermined level (specification at 2). A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’
brief.
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Moberg 6,362,591 Mar. 26, 2002
(filed Oct. 28 1999)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Moberg.
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Moberg.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed January 26,
2005) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 27, 2004), supplemental
brief (filed November 4, 2004), and reply brief (filed March 22,
2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007