Appeal No. 2006-3056 5
Application No. 10/278,769
While we agree with the examiner that the drug infusion system in Fischell includes a
drug delivery module (10) that is fully capable of delivering a fluid medication to a patient in
the manner required in the first clause of claim 1 on appeal, and also includes a controller
that is programmable by a medical professional to deliver an interval rate for at least one of
the plurality of time slots making up the specified period of time set forth in the first clause
of claim 1, we find nothing in the applied Fischell patent which teaches a controller that
then determines a total dose of said fluid medication to be delivered to the patient over
said specified period of time based on said basal rate and said interval rate for each of
said plurality of time slots, compares said total dose against a maximum dose, and adjusts
said basal rate, if necessary, so that said total dose does not exceed said maximum dose,
as required in appellants’ claim 1.
In contrast to the examiner’s apparent position, we do not view the determining,
comparing and adjusting recitations of claim 1 on appeal to be merely “intended use of the
claimed invention” (answer, page 5). In our opinion, such limitations serve to positively
define structural characteristics of the controller set forth in appellants’ claim 1 which is
specifically programmed and/or constructed to carry out the determining, comparing and
adjusting operations once the medical professional enters an appropriate continuing basal
rate of delivery and the desired additional interval rates. No such special purpose
controller is found in Fischell.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007