Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
specifically claim the resilient biasing member of claim 1, the
specifics of the mesh plate of claim 28, nor the proximity of the
vessel side wall to the bottom of the pump shaft of claim 38. We
will now discuss the prior art further relied on by the examiner.
Goodman discloses an apparatus and method for
delivering medicine for inspiration. This device can be
programmed to the specific needs of the patient.
It is the examiner’s position (final rejection,
pp. 7-8) that
[t]he use of an automatic control system that
controls delivery of atomized medicament to
only certain portions/durations of a
patient’s breathing cycle based upon the
patient’s past measured performance are known
in the art so as to reduce waste of the
medicine, as is taught by Goodman et al
(abstract). The use of such with the
nebulizer of Anthony would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art for the
same reason.
In the answer, page 7, the examiner further states that
“Goodman clearly teaches automatically turning the atomizer on
and off based upon previous breathing cycles, [and] programming
these cycles . . . for automatic activation . . . .” There is
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007