Appeal No. 2002-0910 Page 4
Application No. 09/229,855
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We note at the outset that appellants have elected to have claims 1 and 12
considered together and claim 8 considered separately in deciding the appeal of the
rejection of claims 1, 8 and 12 as being anticipated by Fox. Therefore, in accordance
with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claim 12 as the representative claim to
decide the appeal of the rejection, with claim 1 standing or falling therewith.
Turning first to claim 12, Fox discloses a piezoelectric bandage for percutaneous
administration of medicament comprising an ultrasonic transducer 54, 55 having an
operative surface for emitting ultrasound toward the skin and a fastener, made up of
bandage member 50 and adhesive layer 60, for securing the transducer to an exterior
portion of a patient’s body and for simultaneously applying a force to the transducer
against the skin. While Fox does not expressly teach using the disclosed piezoelectric
bandage for healing wounds by applying ultrasound toward and away from the wound
for healing thereof, we agree with the examiner that Fox’s bandage is fully capable,
without modification, of being used for such purpose and that claim 12 requires no more
than this.
Appellants’ only argument against the rejection of claim 12 is that Fox does not
disclose the presence of a wound or imply that the Fox device is used to treat a wound
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007