Appeal No. 2006-3056 7
Application No. 10/278,769
two basal (360, 361) shots of medication scheduled for delivery to the patient during the
quarter-hour periods at the end of the 3-hour window were prevented from being delivered.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that the controller in Fischell looks back to the
previous pump actuations and determines a quarter-hour limit based on the previous
totals, which limit can not be exceeded in the next quarter-hour period of time making up
the sliding 3-hour and 24-hour time windows. The controller in Fischell does not determine
a total dose of said fluid medication to be delivered to the patient over said specified period
of time (e.g., the 3-hour or 24-hour time window) based on said basal rate and said interval
rate for each of said plurality of time slots, does not compare such total dose against a
maximum dose, and does not then adjust said basal rate, if necessary, so that said total
dose does not exceed said maximum dose, as is required in appellants’ claim 1. Moreover,
it is not at all clear to us that the controller in Fischell even has the capability of carrying
out the particular determining, comparing and adjusting functions set forth in appellants’
claim 1. Nor has the examiner explained exactly how such activity, in fact, is within the
capability of the controller in Fischell.
Like appellants, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation with regard to the subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal. For that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007