Appeal No. 2006-3056 3
Application No. 10/278,769
Fischell 4,731,051 Mar. 15, 1988
Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Fischell.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the
above-noted anticipation rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding that rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed March 13, 2006)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’
brief (filed December 28, 2005) and reply brief (filed May 15,
2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellants’ specification1 and claims, to the Fischell
1 The examiner and appellants should review pages 8-11 of
the specification with an eye towards correcting the inaccurate
information conveyed in Table II (page 8) and in paragraph [47]
on page 11. It appears that the last entry in Table II for the
two hour time frame of 22:00-24:00 hours should be 70, not 105 as
shown. This would make the total for the 24-hour time period
shown in Table II 575 mg, not 610 mg as now indicated in
paragraph [47] on page 11. Appellants should also explain why the
adjustment of the basal rate noted in the last sentence of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007