Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
microdroplets toward the target cells with sufficient kinetic
energy to penetrate the target cells. In other words,
appellant's argument for patentability is based on a
limitation not found in claim 3.
The rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Mets is affirmed.
We next consider the rejection of claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Miller. In the Appeal
Brief, page 4, appellant states that "claims 1-3 stand
together." Accordingly, for the purposes of this appeal, we
shall treat claims 1 and 2 as standing or falling together
with representative claim 3.
The issue here is similar to the issue presented in the
§ 102 rejection over Mets. Again, appellant does not
controvert the examiner's finding that Miller discloses a
method of introducing a biological substance into living
target cells by (1) providing the biological substance in a
liquid solution or suspension, (2) dispersing this liquid into
microdroplets of sufficient size to penetrate the target cells
without destroying the target cells, and (3) propelling these
microdroplets toward the target cells with sufficient kinetic
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007