Appeal 2007-3390
Application 10/143,915
We recognize the Lui Declaration. Lui describes both sonophoresis
and iontophoresis and declares that both processes were known in the art
prior to the filing date of the present application (Lui Declaration ¶¶ 3-5).
Lui also declares that there are a number of undesirable side effects in
performing iontophoresis, which are not found in the use of sonophoresis
(Lui Declaration ¶ 6). While this may be true, there is nothing in
Appellants’ claim 4 to exclude the performance of both iontophoresis and
sonophoresis, as taught by Kim, in Appellants’ claimed method.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Lui Declaration, or Appellants’
arguments based on the Lui Declaration (see Br. 6-7).
On reflection, Appellants have not identified, and we do not find, an
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Kim and Spencer. Claims 5-7 and 9 fall together with
claim 4.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm all rejections of record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
dm
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013