Appeal No. 2005-0224
Application No. 08/878,146
providers and patients. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to the
routineer in the art to have modified the method of Maa by substituting the
proteins with other active agents by routine experimentation and to
broaden the scope of the therapy.
Appellants argue in response that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Brief, page 4.
Appellants argue that, “Maa does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed
method of delivering an agent to the pulmonary system comprising administering, from
a receptacle, a mass of particles characterized by a 5 mg dose of an agent delivered to
the pulmonary system (present claims 1, 156, 157) in a single, breath activated step
(present claims 1, 156 and 157), ... and/or specifically recited percentages of the
particles having a fine particle fraction of less than 6.8 microns (present claims 156 and
157) and/or 4 microns (present claims 152 and 157) delivered in a single breath
activated step.” Brief, page 4. Appellants also argue that Cipolla “discloses that the
current state of the art, at best, can not exceed 5 mg of agent in a single dose.” Brief,
pages 5-6.
The examiner responds, arguing that Maa discloses respirable fractions of 50
and 70%. Answer, page 4. The examiner also points out that appellants state that 50%
delivery of drugs is closely related to the FPF limitation, and that Maa discloses FPF’s of
up to 50% and in table 1 actually discloses respirable fractions of 50 and 70%. Id.
We agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007