Appeal No. 96-0022
Application 08/096,214
such, we are at a complete loss to understand the basis of the
examiner's anticipation rejection. Diefenbach simply does not
disclose a drug delivering apparatus. We will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Diefenbach.
In addition, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 42-44, which are
dependent of claim 39 because we find absolutely no teaching or
suggestion in Diefenbach of a drug delivering apparatus which
includes a carrier means for carrying a treatment to a specific
location in a body part.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007