Appeal No. 2006-1277 Page 2
Application No. 10/221,711
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an inhaler for delivery of a medicament from a
canister that is compressible to deliver a dose of medicament. Claim 1, the only independent
claim on appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced infra in the
opinion section of this decision.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Christrup et. al. US 2003/0230305 A1 Dec. 18, 2003 (Nov. 22, 1999)
(Christrup)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Christrup.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed October 3,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellant's
brief (filed June 14, 2005) and reply brief (filed November 30, 2005) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Christrup publication, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons urged by the appellant
on pages 4-6 of the brief, the examiner’s rejection cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007