Appeal No. 98-2769
Application 08/485,960
“Phipps is considered as inherently conveying to the reader the claimed invention.”
However, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 21 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) based on Sibalis ‘479. Sibalis ‘479 discloses an electrotransport delivery “system” that
comprises an electrotransport device for delivering a therapeutic agent through a body surface, wherein
the device (e.g., Figs. 17 or 19) includes a controller (e.g., 280) that is programmable to operate at a
predetermined, substantially fixed electrical output (see, e.g., col. 11, lines 46-52) and is adapted to be
detachably connected to a plurality of replaceable therapeutic agent sources (e.g., 264B). Sibalis ‘479
makes clear (e.g., col 7, lines 60-61) that different drugs can be incorporated into the various
replaceable therapeutic agent sources for particular applications depending on the medical needs of the
patient, thus providing a plurality of different therapeutic agent sources and a situation where the
electrotransport agent delivery rate of the system with one of said sources would be substantially
different from the electrotransport agent delivery rate of the system with another one of said sources.
Appellants’ argument (brief, pages 11-12) that Sibalis ‘479 fails to disclose a controller
component of an electrotransport device which is adapted to be detachably connected, one at a time,
to a plurality of therapeutic agent sources, is not agreed with. In contrast with appellants’ argument
regarding the embodiment seen in Figure 17 of Sibalis ‘479, we note that the controller is adapted to be
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007