Appeal No. 2005-0126
Application No. 09/967,791
the examiner argues that the art teaches suitable alternatives for the mode of
administration of said sugar composition. Answer, p. 7. I agree.
Turning to the applied prior art, I find that Keep discloses that hypertonic agents
are typically “infused for 30 seconds through a major cerebral artery,” but that less
invasive and more convenient intravenous routes are also acceptable. Keep, col. 5,
lines 42-44 and lines 49-52. Keep further discloses (col. 6, lines 29-33) that the
invention includes
. . . all methods of administering treatment medications along with all methods of
opening, bypassing or disrupting the blood-brain barrier in combination,
simultaneously or in sequence to get the treatment medication in contact with
nervous tissues.
Keep still further discloses that numerous alternative routes of administering
pharmaceutical compositions into the blood stream were known in the art at the time the
application was filed. See, e.g., Keep, col. 5, line 64- col. 6, line 62. Keep still further
discloses that the preferred route depends on the condition of the patient. Id., col. 6,
lines 21-22. Keep still further discloses a formulation comprising a therapeutic drug
(desired compound for crossing the blood-brain barrier) and mannitol (a sugar
composition) which may be “isotonic, hypotonic or hypertonic with the blood of the
recipient.” Keep, e.g., col. 8, lines 59-66; see also, the Brief, p. 14, last para.
In addition to teaching that a hypertonic sugar composition increases the
permeability of the blood-brain barrier, Naito discloses that the mode of administration is
immaterial so long as the hypertonic sugar composition and compound of interest
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007