Appeal 2007-0318
Application 09/766,362
29. The claim language “comprising” does not exclude other
components, such as an absorption enhancers and gel-forming materials
disclosed by Illum.
30. In addition, Illum discloses administering their drugs “in powder
form using a nasal insufflator,” and “in the form of a powder by spraying”
(col. 3, ll. 12-14; col. 4, ll. 13-14); Illum also identifies sources for nasal
insufflators “employed for commercial powder systems intended for nasal
application.” (Col. 9, ll. 53-61.)
31. Illum explains the advantages of nasal delivery, known in the art.
(Col. 1, l. 62 to col. 2, l. 3.)
32. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Steiner and Illum with a reasonable expectation of success, as
both references are directed to drug delivery systems useful for
administration to the nasal mucosa. (FFs 9, 28-31.) Steiner teaches the
advantages of diketopiperazine (col. 4, ll. 49-55) and Illum expressly
discloses the advantages of nasal administration with a dry powder form of
drug via a nasal insufflator. (FF 31.)
33. Both Steiner and Illum teach relatively small particle sizes which
either overlap with the claimed range (Steiner) or encompass the claimed
range (Illum). (FFs 4-5, 28.)
DISCUSSION OF REJECTION BASED ON STEINER AND ILLUM
Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, we conclude claim
3 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Steiner and Illum.
For the reasons given in addressing the rejection over Steiner alone, we
again conclude all of the claim limitations which flow from dependency on
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013