Appeal No. 98-2769
Application 08/485,960
method comprises the step of “providing, one at a time, a plurality of drug-containing units, each
drug-containing units [sic] having a specific dose different from the others of said plurality.”
Like the examiner, we are at a loss to understand how merely “providing a plurality of
therapeutic agent sources” as set forth in claim 1 on appeal would in any way adjust the rate of
therapeutic agent delivery as required in claim 1. Likewise, we fail to understand how merely
“providing, one at a time, a plurality of drug-containing units” would vary the drug delivery rate as set
forth in claim 6 on appeal. As is made clear in appellants’ specification (e.g., page 10, line 24, et seq.),
when the dosing rate needs to be changed, the drug-containing unit that is presently in use is
disconnected from the controller and replaced with a new drug-containing unit having a different drug
composition and delivery rate, thus, requiring that one of the plurality of
provided drug-containing units actually be used along with the controller before any desired variation in
drug delivery rate can be achieved. Since the method as set forth in appellants’ claim 1 does not
deliver a therapeutic agent or adjust the rate of therapeutic agent delivery as set forth therein, we agree
with the examiner that the scope of this claim is indefinite. Similarly, since the
method of claim 6 on appeal does not vary the drug delivery rate as required therein, the scope of that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007