Appeal No. 1997-2512
Application No. 08/118,905
See column 3, lines 62-66 and column 4, lines 11 and 12. Then, to administer the drug
dose, the ends of the package are opened by cutting along lines 60 and 61 as shown in
Figures 2, 6, and 7. See column 7, lines 23-26. Although Kidder does not expressly state
the order by which ends 60 and 61 may be cut, it is clear from reviewing the entire
reference as a whole that either of ends 60 or 61 may be cut first. We base this factual
finding on Kidder’s disclosure of using various means, such as a constriction 15 (column 5,
lines 41-44) or intermediate bends 70 and 71 formed in the shape of a gooseneck (column
6, lines 64-48), which would prevent the drug from falling through as a result of gravity when
the package is held upright. Therefore, it would be immaterial as to which end is cut first.
Once cut, one end is placed within the patient’s mouth, while the other end is
positioned within a cup of liquid. See column 7, lines 38-40. The drug dose therein can
then be released into the patient’s mouth as the patient draws liquid through the package
from the other end to the one end. See column 7, lines 26-28 and 51-54, together with
Figure 8.
Moreover, the broadest definition of the term “animal,” which is recited in present
claim 12, is inclusive of human patients. In this regard, the term “animal” is defined in the
dictionary as “any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living beings typically differing from plants in
capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor response to stimulation.” See page
86 of the Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a copy of which is attached herewith. Further,
the term “mucosal membrane of the animal” appearing in the appellants’ claim 12 covers
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007