Ex Parte PATTON et al - Page 6



              Appeal No. 2002-1128                                                                   Page 6                 
              Application No. 08/668,036                                                                                    
                     [I]n spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is                       
                     the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process                                
                     steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that                                  
                     when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be                                  
                     either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a                           
                     product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section                            
                     102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a                               
                     practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture                                     
                     products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art                            
                     products and make physical comparisons therewith.  [Emphasis added.]                                   
                     Applying those principles of law to the facts before us, we believe that Platz                         
              discloses a product "which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly                    
              different than" the product recited in claim 24.                                                              
                     Generally speaking, the Platz disclosure relates to inhalation therapy involving                       
              the administration of a drug in aerosol form to the respiratory tract.  According to Platz,                   
              "the present invention is useful for transforming polypeptide drugs into a powder form                        
              that is suitable for aerosol administration" (column 2, lines 13 through 15).  Examples of                    
              such polypeptides include, inter alia, insulin (column 2, line 21).  Platz discloses a two-                   
              step process where "[t]he first step in the process for forming the polypeptides into                         
              micronized particles is lyophilization"  (column 2, lines 38 through 40).  Subsequently,                      
              the lyophilized polypeptide is size reduced in a grinding mill, preferably a fluid energy                     
              mill also known as a jet mill (column 3, lines 3 through 5).  The particle size of the milled                 
              powder disclosed by Platz appears to be essentially the same as the particle size                             


              recited in claim 15 from which claim 24 depends (Platz, column 3, line 65 through                             
              column 4, line 19).                                                                                           
                     On this record, it would appear that Platz discloses a stable, dry powder insulin                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007