Appeal No. 2001-0661 10
Application No. 08/480,232
The § 103 rejection of independent claim 51, as well as claims 52-56 that depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Sibalis will not be sustained. Claim 51 is directed
to a body surface mountable electrotransport device comprising, among other things, “a
substantially rigid” component having a flexural rigidity greater than 1.5 x 10-3 kg-m2/rad.
For the reasons discussed above, Sibalis does not teach or suggest a body surface
mountable electrotransport device including “a substantially rigid” component within the
meaning of that term as used in appellants’ invention.
REMAND
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of following matter.
Claims 51, 53 and 56 are directed to a body surface mountable electrotransport
device comprising “a substantially rigid” component.4 As such, claims 51, 53 and 56
encompass a body surface mounted electrotransport device comprises a single
substantially rigid component. In the background section of the specification, appellants
discussion of the state of the prior art indicates that a body surface mounted
electrotransport device comprises a single substantially rigid component was known in the
art. In particular, attention is directed to the paragraph spanning pages 4 and 5 of the
3(...continued)
delivery device set forth in claims 23 and 25.
4Claim 52 depends from claim 51 and adds that the device of claim 51 has “a
plurality of said substantially rigid components” which are coupled together. Claims 54
and 55 depend from claim 52.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007