Appeal No. 2002-0747 Page 10
Application No. 09/006,982
“[f]urthermore the co-location of an air source and pulsatile device at one end of a
delivery device is old and well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider such to be more of a matter of mere obvious routine design choice rather than
it constituting a patentably distinct inventive step, barring a convincing showing of
evidence to the contrary” (Answer, page 7). The appellants argue in rebuttal that the
examiner has provided no evidence to support the conclusions set forth above, and
thus the rejection should not stand.
Watt discloses a rotary proportioning inhalator comprising a somewhat cone-
shaped cylindrical body having an outer element 38, an inner element 39, and a face
adaptor 47. Several pressurized therapeutic gases are supplied to the inhalator
through a plurality of individual inlets 36 which are located at about the midpoint along
the length of the device. The mixing of the pressurized gases is controlled by demand
valves located at each inlet, and the mixture is communicated to the user by means of
the face adaptor. There is no teaching of introducing a stream of air in addition to the
gases, or that the Watt device is rotatable in use.
By the examiner’s admission, Watt fails to disclose or teach at least two
elements recited in the claim, namely, positioning the delivery devices at a first end of
the chamber, and positioning the delivery devices within a plurality of cassettes.
Contrary to the statement of the examiner, the appellants have explained in detail how
and why the specified locations of the air source and the pulsatile delivery devices are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007