Appeal No. 2005-1693
Application No. 10/192,333
Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988) (limitations appearing in the specification will not be
read into the claims).
Furthermore, the method of claim 2 is not even limited to making components for a
medicinal inhalation device. The phrase “a component for a medicinal inhalation device” in the
preamble of claim 2 is merely a statement of intended use and fails to patentably distinguish the
claimed method from the method disclosed in Gleason. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the
claim when it merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention). There is no reason to
believe that wires, tubing, etc. coated with a (CF2)n-type polymer thin film according to the
thermal CVD process disclosed in Gleason could not be used in a medicinal inhalation device.
Thus, Gleason alone appears to satisfy the limitations of claim 2.
III.
The examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Warby3 and Gleason.4 Answer at 3-4.
Warby discloses a process for depositing a layer of a polymerized fluorinated
hydrocarbon, such as polytetrafluoroethylene, on the surface of the components of a medical
inhalation device using a cold plasma polymerization treatment. See, e.g., Warby at 7, lines
3 The appellant refers to International Publication No. WO 99/42154 as “Bespak.” However, in this
decision, we refer to the publication as “Warby.” See footnote 1, supra.
4 Claims 1 through 11 are subject to the same ground of rejection. The appellant has argued the claims as a
group. We have selected claim 2 to decide the appeal. See 37 CFR § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007