Ex Parte LATTIN et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2001-0661                                                               4              
             Application No. 08/480,232                                                                        


             “petal” regions.  Be that as it may, we nonetheless share appellants’ view that these             
             circumstances alone are insufficient to establish anticipation of the subject matter of claim     
             1.  Our determination in this regard hinges on exactly what the broadest reasonable               
             interpretation of the term “rigid region” in claim 1 would be to one of ordinary skill in the art.
                   In proceeding before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest             
             reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by            
             one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of            
             definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the         
             applicants’ specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027               
             (Fed. Cir. 1997).   We are informed by appellants’ disclosure that the housings 12, 14,           
             which correspond to the “rigid regions” of claim 1                                                
                   are substantially incapable of conforming to the contour of the underlying                  
                   skin surface and, but for hinge 16, would eventually cause the underlying                   
                   adhesive sheet 18 . . . either to peel away from the skin, or pull on the skin              
                   and thereby cause discomfort for the wearer as a result of normal body                      
                   movement.  [Specification, page 12.]                                                        
             We are further informed by appellants’ disclosure that                                            
                   [t]he term “rigid” when used in describing a portion or zone of an                          
                   electrotransport system means that the portion or zone has sufficient                       
                   stiffness so as to be incapable of adhering to a body surface (e.g., the skin)              
                   of a patient using a biocompatible and pharmaceutically acceptable contact                  
                   adhesive without injury to the body surface or identifiable patient discomfort,             
                   throughout the normal range of body motion.  In other words, a “rigid” zone                 
                   of an electrotransport system is prone to peel from the skin, or alternatively              
                   to undergo delamination of adjacent layers within the rigid zone of the                     
                   system, thereby interfering with the desired agent or delivery system.                      
                   [Specification, page 13.]                                                                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007