Appeal No. 2006-1277 Page 3
Application No. 10/221,711
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An inhaler for delivery by inhalation of a medicament from a
canister which is compressible to deliver a dose of medicament,
the inhaler comprising
a housing for holding a canister having a generally
cylindrical body with the cylindrical axis of the body in
predetermined direction;
a loading mechanism for loading a resilient loading
element which is arranged, when loaded, to bias compression of
the canister, the loading mechanism comprising:
a loading member engaging the resilient loading element;
and
at least one contact member movable relative to the
housing in a movement direction orthogonal to said predetermined
direction and arranged to drive the loading member to load the
resilient loading element through a cam arrangement between the
at least one contact member and the loading member.
Christrup’s inhaler comprises two buttons 34a, 34b movable relative to the inhaler
housing 2 in a direction orthogonal to the cylindrical axis of the canister 5 and arranged to drive
the loading member 32 to load the loading spring 31 through the arrangement illustrated in
Figure 10 including two torsion springs 35a, 35b fixed inside the upper housing portion 3 (para.
53). The examiner’s rejection relies in part on the examiner’s position that the torsion springs
35a, 35b of Christrup’s inhaler constitute a “cam arrangement” as called for in appellant’s claim
1. The basis for the examiner’s position is the bold text of the MSN Encarta Dictionary
definition of “cam,” which reads, in its entirety, as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007