Appeal No. 2005-0224
Application No. 08/878,146
i) at least about 50% of the mass of particles stored in the receptacle is delivered to
the pulmonary system of the subject; and
ii) at least about 5 milligrams of the agent is delivered to the pulmonary system of
the subject.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Maa et al. (Maa) 6,284,282 April, 2001
Reference cited by appellants and Merits Panel:
Cipolla, et al. (Cipolla), “Bolus Administration of INS365: studying the feasibility of
delivering high dose of drugs using the AERx® Pulmonary Delivery System,” in Byron,
PR, Farr, SJ, eds., Respiratory Drug Delivery VII, Buffalo Grove, IL, InterPharm Press,
pp. 231-239 (May 14-18, 2000).
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1-27, 33-38, 152 and 155 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for
obviousness over Maa.
We reverse this rejection.
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-27, 33-38, 152 and 155 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
for obviousness over Maa.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is well-established that the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007