Appeal No. 99-0230
Application No. 08/396,277
means for generating turbulence in said airstream
due to inhalation by the patient;
a microphone selectively responsive to said
turbulence due to inhalation to generate a control
signal; and
control means coupled to said nebulizer means and
responsive to said control signal to cause said
nebulizer means to generate said aerosol . . . .
Independent method claim 11 includes these same limitations.
All of the claims stand rejected as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Edgar, Henry, the textbook, and
Snook. We do not agree, and we therefore will not sustain the
Section 103 rejection. Our reasoning follows.
Edgar discloses a drug delivery arrangement in which
inhalation by the patient is sensed by a spring-mounted device
mounted in the airstream delivery duct means, which senses
that an appropriate airstream is being pulled through the duct
by being deflected from its at rest position, whereupon it
provides a signal to the nebulizer to inject the drug into the
airstream. Edgar fails to disclose the required turbulence
generating means and the microphone that reacts to the noise
caused thereby, which in the appellants’ system is indicative
of the level of flow of the airstream through the duct during
the patient’s inhalation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007