Ex parte MATTHEW A. HOWARD et al. - Page 7

          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.                         

                         NEAL E. ABRAMS                )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge   )                              
                         CHARLES E. FRANKFORT          )  BOARD OF PATENT             
                         Administrative Patent Judge   )   APPEALS AND                
                                                       )  INTERFERENCES               
                        MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD           )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge )                                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007