Appeal No. 2006-1844 7
Application No. 10/080,292
With respect to claims 19 and 20 we note appellants’
argument on page 5 of the supplemental brief that Verreet
cannot teach the size limitations claimed in claims 19 and
20. We concur. We reverse the section 102 rejection of
claims 19 and 20 based on the Verreet patent.
We note that the rejections of claims 21, 22 and 23
under section 103 are not argued on page 9 of the
supplemental brief apart from a limitation of the
independent claim 17 from which they depend. Thus claim 21
falls with claim 17 as unpatentable over Verreet in view of
Cragg, and claims 22 and 23 fall with claim 17 as
unpatentable over Verreet in view of Cragg and any of
Bolger, Saadat, or Henalla.
Finally, with respect to claim 24 we agree that none
of the applied prior art appears to disclose a patient-
operated device in combination with a delivery system.
Indeed, the examiner has not so indicated. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 24 under section 103 is reversed.
SUMMARY
All rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-16 are reversed.
The rejections of claims 17-20 under section 102 as
anticipated by Siramanne are reversed.
The rejection of claim 17 under section 102 as
anticipated by Donadio is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007