Appeal 2007-0526
Application 10/141,032
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Edwards WO 98/31346 Jul. 23, 1998
Vaghefi US 5,875,776 Mar. 2, 1999
Unger US 6,143,276 Nov. 7, 2000
(filed Mar. 21, 1997)
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 20-31, 33-39, 42, and 51-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Edwards, Vaghefi, and Unger (Answer 3).
The Examiner cites Edwards as disclosing, for use in a passive dry
powder inhaler, a drug delivery composition having a mass mean diameter
between 5 and 30 microns and a bulk density of 0.4 g/cm3, “which together
yield an aerodynamic diameter of the particles between 1 and 5 microns”
(id.). As advantages of Edwards’ composition, the Examiner points out that
over 35 percent of the composition’s particles are considered respirable, and
that the composition yields enhanced drug delivery (id.).
As relevant to claims 20 and 51, the Examiner points out that Edwards
teaches that antibiotics can be delivered using Edwards’ drug delivery
system, but concedes that Edwards does not teach tobramycin as an active
ingredient (id.). To meet this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Vaghefi:
“Vaghefi teaches that it [tobramycin] is deliverable by dry powder inhaler
(column 12 line 34). Thus, one of ordinary skill would deliver tobramycin
with the inhalation method of Edwards in view of its deliverability as an
inhaled powder as taught by Vaghefi” (id. at 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013