Appeal No. 2005-1693
Application No. 10/192,333
Specification at 8, lines 16-21.
The films are also said to exhibit superior chemical stability and inertness, which in
conjunction with enhanced mechanical stability, is advantageous for long-term performance of
the medicinal inhalation device as well as the reduction of undesirable interactions between a
component or a surface of the device and a medicinal formulation. Specification at 8, lines 21-
25.
II.
In the specification, the appellant discloses that (Specification at 7, lines 18-21):
A method [of] forming a (CF2)n-type (i.e. PTFE-type) polymer thin film on a
surface of a structure comprising the steps of a) and b) [of the claimed method] is
known from WO 97/42356 [Gleason]. However, said document is silent with
respect to medicinal inhalation devices and components for such devices.
According to Gleason, the disclosed thermal CVD process is useful in a wide range of
thin film applications, including biomedical applications. Gleason at 6, lines 23-26. The
appellant recognizes as much. Brief at 5. Nevertheless, the appellant argues that (Brief at 5):
The reference to “biomedical applications” in Gleason apparently is in regards to
what would be exterior coatings on implants, probes, tubing, wires and the like,
and does not appear to suggest application to the inner, formulation-contacting
surfaces of a medicinal aerosol device.
Significantly, the claim does not require the film to be formed on the “inner, formulation-
contacting surfaces” of a medicinal inhalation device. The claim merely requires a fluorocarbon
(CF2)n-type polymer thin film to be formed on “a surface of the component.” See E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007