Appeal No. 2000-1682 Page 13
Application No. 08/845,503
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this
rejection as it is directed to claim 4 or claims 5, 10 and 11
dependent therefrom.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 5, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gross. In support of this rejection, the
examiner states:
In reviewing appellant’s specification and claims,
it has been determined that a “blade” may include a
microprotusion with a passage extending
therethrough. It is unclear where the cutting edge
is from appellant’s disclosure but one of ordinary
skill would conclude that it is on the tip of the
microprotrusion (207) as seen in figure 1. The
examiner contends that this constitutes nothing more
than a needle type configuration. Gross et al
teaches such configurations as can be seen in
figures 7a-7e . . . [examiner's answer, page
7](emphasis added).
Appellant’s disclosure teaches that the simplest
embodiment of the present invention comprises a bed of
microneedles or microcutters (specification at page 5), but
that in the preferred embodiment the microprotrusions are
blades (specification at page 7). As such, the appellant’s
disclosure teaches that a blade is a type of microprotrusion
but not that all microprotrusions are blades.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007