Appeal No. 1998-0805
Application No. 08/599,508
application. Subsequent to the final rejection, a number of
the claims were amended and claims 3, 22, and 34-43 were
canceled. However, the examiner maintained the final
rejection, leaving claims 1, 2, 4-20 and 24-33 before us on
appeal.
The appellants’ invention is directed to a dry powder
inhaler. The invention is illustrated by reference to claim
1, which reads as follows:
1. A dry powder inhaler comprising, a first
chamber in which means for deaggregating a dry
powder by vibrating said powder, a first air flow 2
passageway in which the deaggregated powder can be
separated by size, and a second air flow passageway
in which the size-separated powder can be picked up
and carried for inhalation by a patient.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
2This phrase is confused. It would appear that “in
which” should read --having--. In any event, correction
should be made.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007