Appeal No. 2000-1682 Page 15
Application No. 08/845,503
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 6-7
under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or in the alternative
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ganderton, Gross or
alternatively Gerstel et al.
Claim 6 recites the step of “determining if said
microcut extends into the epidermis of that individual at said
delivery site.”
As we discussed above, it is our view that Gerstel,
Ganderton and Gross do not disclose this step of determining
the depth of a cut that will extend through the stratum
corneum of that animal at said delivery site but not penetrate
the dermis of the animal at said delivery site. Therefore, in
our view, the cited references do not teach the step of
determining if the cut will extend through the stratum corneum
into the epidermis but not penetrate the dermis for the
reasons stated above in our discussions of the rejections of
claims 4, 5 and 10 and 11. As such, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by in view Gerstel, Ganderton or Gross.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007