Appeal 2007-0318
Application 09/766,362
be in, e.g., a liquid or suspension. (See, e.g., Steiner, col. 26, ll. 10-19 (claim
17).)
7. One skilled in the art would understand the term “microparticles”
to mean very small particles, i.e., a powder. (Answer 8; Webster’s 749,
858.)
8. Steiner confirms the microparticles are in a dry form by disclosing
that their “microparticles can be stored in the dried state . . . .” (Steiner, col.
10, l. 9.)
9. Steiner discloses nasal administration of a drug (an imaging agent)
and suggests administration in the form of microparticles, preferably
microparticles “that bind to mucosal membranes.” (Col. 13, ll. 13-21, cited
in Answer 3-4.)
10. Absent evidence to the contrary, Steiner’s microparticles would
be “suitable for nasal administration.” (FFs 4-9.)
The Differences Between Claims 1 and 14 and the Prior Art
11. With respect to both claims 1 and 14, the single, arguable
difference between the claimed invention and Steiner’s teachings is the
claim recites an “average particle size of between 10 and 20 microns,” and
Steiner discloses a “particle size range between 0.1 and 10 microns.” (FFs
1-3, 4-9.)
12. Based on Steiner’s teachings and suggestions, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to nasally administer Steiner’s
microspheres comprising a drug and diketopiperazine and, if necessary, to
optimize the particle size range for the particular application. (FFs 4-10.)
13. Further, the skilled artisan, knowledgeable about the
administration of drugs to the nasal cavity, would have a reasonable
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013