Appeal No. 2005-0126
Application No. 09/967,791
The appellant responds, arguing Naito or Keep do not disclose any route of
administration of a sugar composition to open the blood-brain barrier than oral (Naito) or
intravascular (Keep). Brief, page 13.
With respect to Naito, appellant argues that “[t]he oral administration disclosed by
Naito ... is by ingestion, that is by swallowing followed by absorption in the small
intestines. Thus, the oral administration of Naito is an ‘enteral (i.e. intestinal)
administration.’” Reply Brief, page 2. Appellant further argues that the “present
specification, at each instance where it discloses 'oral', refers to absorption through the
oral mucosa, such as occurs when a subject sucks on a lozenge or gargles or chews
gum.” Reply Brief, page 2. Appellant argues claim 10 does not call for oral
administration, but for administration via one of 6 different mucosal surfaces, one of
which may be the oral mucosa. Id.
Appellant argues that, “Keep does not disclose any method of osmotic disruption
of the blood-brain barrier other than by administration of a hypertonic osmotic agent by
an intravascular route, either intra-arterial or intra-venous.” Id. Instead Keep describes
alternative modes of administration for only the formulary drug.
In addressing the appellant’s arguments, the examiner submits that “[o]ral
administration of the hypertonic composition [in Naito] meets the instant requirement of
administration by a route other than enteral administration or intravascular injection (see
claim 10).” Answer, page 8.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007