Appeal No. 96-0022
Application 08/096,214
approach the area circumscribed by claim 43. We will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Turning now to the examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 39,we find that Diefenbach discloses a magnetic key case
which includes a magnet 15 attached to a container 7 with a
sliding cover 11. The container holds a key 8. The examiner
considers the magnet 15 to be a "magnetic means for inserting in
a body part", the sliding cover 11 to be a "carrier means for
carrying a treatment to a specific location in the body part" and
the container 7 to be a "connection means for releasably
connecting the carrier means to the magnetic means."
The examiner argues that the language "drug delivering
apparatus" is a statement of intended use and that the case 11
disclosed in Diefenbach is capable of carrying a treatment (See
Examiner's Answer at page 4). The examiner also argues that a
body can include a myriad of possibilities such as a car (Final
Rejection at page 5). However, we, as well as the examiner, are
charged with interpreting the recitations in claim 39 consistent
with the specification which is clearly directed to a drug
delivering apparatus for carrying treatment to a specific
location in the body of an animal such as a human being. As
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007