Appeal No. 96-3923
Application 08/309,790
Considering next the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 1 and 5-7 based on the combined teachings of Fuller and
Rose and claims 1-4 based on the combined teachings of Fuller
and Ray, each of these claims is directed to a method for
reducing the incidence of tobacco by simulating respiratory
tract sensations in a user substantively similar to those
obtained by inhalation of tobacco smoke. The answer states
that:
Fuller describes an experiment wherein
capsaicin, an extract, or constituent, of
pepper, was inhaled by human subjects (see
page 1080, column 1, first (abstract)
paragraph and column 2, paragraph beginning
"Drug Delivery" in particular). The device
used was a nebulizer. This is the same
method as here claimed. [Page 3.]
Thereafter, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious (1) "to have used the aerosol device of Rose in order
to deliver the capsaicin to the human subjects" (answer, page
4) and (2) "to have used the tube of Ray as the nebulizer in
the method of Fuller, substituting capsaicin for nicotine, in
order to deliver the capsaicin to human subjects" (answer,
page 4).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007