Appeal No. 2000-1682 Page 16
Application No. 08/845,503
The examiner argues that if the determining step of
claims 6 and 7 is not inherent in the disclosures of Gerstel,
Ganderton and Gross, it would have been obvious to do so since
testing is required before taking a medical device to the
market place.
Neither Gerstel, Ganderton nor Gross discloses or
suggests that the skin of a specific animal at a specific
delivery site be tested to determine the length of the
microprotusions which will penetrate the stratum corneum and
not the dermis. Indeed, these references do not teach that
the stratum corneum at different sites on an animal would have
different thicknesses.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable in view of Gerstel, Gross or Ganderton.
In summary:
The examiner’s rejection or claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)as being anticipated by SU 1296174 is affirmed.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gerstel is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007