Appeal 2007-0526
Application 10/141,032
While some drug formulations use propellants or compressed gas to deliver
the drug to the patient’s lungs, passively inhaled powders rely on the
patient’s own inhalation to provide the energy needed to aerosolize the drug
formulation (id. at 1-2). However, “inspiration flow rate can drastically vary
between individuals. . . . Variability in inspiratory effort may affect the
ability of the formulation to be dispersed within a gas stream, the ability to
deagglomerate a powdered formulation, and/or the ability of the aerosolized
formulation to adequately reach the deep lung” (id. at 2).
“Due to its spreading characteristics on lung epithelia, surfactant has
been proposed as the ideal carrier for delivery of drugs to the lung, and via
the lung to the systemic circulation” (id. at 3). However, the Specification
discloses that using surfactants such as phospholipids to deliver drugs to the
lungs can be problematic because fine powders containing them may have
poor dispersibility, resulting in difficulties “when attempting to deliver,
aerosolize, and/or package the powders” (id.).
The Specification discloses “dry powder compositions of
phospholipids . . . [that] are efficiently delivered to the deep lung. The
phospholipid[s] may be delivered alone . . . or in combination another active
agent and/or excipient” (id.). “[A]ctive agents useful in this invention
include . . . tobramycin . . .” (id. at 5).
DISCUSSION
1. CLAIMS
Claims 20-31, 33-39, 42, and 51-59 are pending and on appeal.
Appellants separate the claims into two groups for argument, with
Group I containing claims 20-31, 33-39, and 42, and Group II containing
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013