Appeal Number: 2006-1762
Application Number: 09/848,774
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an insulin inhaler. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 22, which is reproduced below.
22. A method for treating diabetes mellitus in a patient comprising the steps of:
a. supplying a predetermined amount of dry insulin powder to an inhalation
device;
b. releasing a pressurized gas over the predetermined amount of dry insulin
powder to create an aerosolized suspension comprising powder suspended in
air, wherein the aerosolized suspension contains an amount of insulin that is
2-10 times higher than the amount needed to be absorbed in the bloodstream
of the patient; and
c. inhaling the aerosolized suspension at a flow rate and volume sufficient to
allow the patient to absorb in the bloodstream a controlled dose of insulin that
comprises between 1-50 units of insulin.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Velasquez 5,192,548 March 9, 1993
Schenk PCT WO 90/07351 July 12, 1990
Isselbacher et al. (ed.), Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 13th Edition, Vol. 2, pp. 1986-
1987, 1994 (Harrison)
REJECTION
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed Aug
12, 2004) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed May 10,
2004) and reply brief (filed Oct 12, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 22 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schenk in view
of Velasquez.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007