Appeal No. 2001-1044 Page 17
Application No. 08/881,216
different form of “local” administration. Thus, topical administration does not
include administration to the lungs.
Summary
We affirm the rejection of claims 18-21 and 24-26 for obviousness
because the cited references support a prima facie case under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
which has not effectively been rebutted. We also affirm the rejection of claims
25 and 26 as indefinite. However, we reverse the rejection of claim 23 because
the prior art does not provide motivation to combine the modification taught by
Woodle with the composition made obvious by the other references. Thus, claim
23 is not subject to any outstanding rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/dym
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007