Appeal No. 2001-0661 8
Application No. 08/480,232
2. The obviousness rejection
Claims 2-6, 14-16 and 31-33 depend from independent claim 1 and claims 35-39
depend from independent claim 34. In addition to not anticipating the requirement of
independent claim 1 calling for “rigid regions” and the requirement of independent claim 34
calling for at least two “substantially rigid regions,” Sibalis does not teach or suggest
modifying the transdermal drug applicator thereof to provide such a construction. It
follows that the standing § 103 rejection of these claims based on Sibalis cannot be
sustained.
Claims 22, 24 and 26 depend from claim 21. Claim 22 calls for “regions of planar
rigidity” having flexural rigidity “greater than about 1.5 x 10-3 kg-m2/rad,” claim 24 calls for
“rigid regions” having flexural rigidity “greater than about 5.0 x 10-3 kg-m2/rad,” and claim
26 calls for a “rigid region” having a flexural rigidity and flexible means having a flexural
rigidity, wherein the difference between the two flexural rigidities is “greater than 0.3 x 10-3
kg-m2/rad.” Sibalis does not teach or suggest the “rigid region” limitations seemingly
called for in claims 22, 24 and 26.2 In addition, Sibalis does not teach or suggest the
2We note that the term “the regions of planar rigidity” in claim 22 and the term
“the rigid region” in claims 24 and 26 lack a proper antecedent basis. This matter
should be corrected upon return of this case to the Technology Center, such as by
amending base claim 21 to provide the clear antecedent for the terms in question.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007