Appeal No. 2004-0250 Page 18
Application No. 09/226,412
Independent claim 30 and dependent claims 41, 48, 52, 58, 61, and 67 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness we rely upon
Rubsamen and Chance.
These claims differ from the method described in Rubsamen by requiring a
specified monomeric insulin analog such as Lyspro. Chance describes Lyspro and the
advantages it possesses over native human insulin. Id., Column 1, lines 14-20
(“[Lyspro] is less prone to dimerization or self-association to higher molecular weight
forms thereby possessing a comparatively more rapid onset of activity while retaining
the biological activity of native human insulin.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Lyspro as the
monomeric insulin analog in Rubsamen for the advantages described by Chance. As
to the requirement of claim 41 that at least about 10% of the monomeric insulin be
delivered to the lung, we direct attention to column 9, lines 23-35 of Rubsamen.
Dependent claims 31, 32, 34-40, and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). As evidence of obviousness, we rely upon Rubsamen and Chance.
The references are combined for the reasons set forth above. The limitations
added by these dependent claims are accounted for as follows:
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007