Appeal 2007-0526
Application 10/141,032
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered claims 20 and 51 prima facie obvious in view of these
teachings.
Vaghefi describes methods of dispensing dry powdered
pharmaceuticals to the lung by inhalation (Vaghefi, col. 1, ll. 4-8). As
indicated by the Examiner, Vaghefi discloses that tobramycin is suitably
administered to the lungs in a dry powdered formulation. (See id. at col. 10,
l. 63, through col. 12, l. 34: “A wide variety of pharmaceuticals are
contemplated for delivery employing the invention inhalation device and
methods described herein. Examples include: . . . antibacterial agents (e.g., .
. . tobramycin sulfate).”)
Edwards discloses particles containing a phospholipid surfactant, as
recited in claims 20 and 51, for delivering therapeutic agents via inhalation
(Edwards, abstract). Edwards discloses that the particles have a tap density
of less than 0.4 g/cm3, a mass mean diameter between 5 and 30 microns, and
an aerodynamic diameter of between approximately one and three microns,
properties encompassed by claims 20 and 51 (id.). Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner’s position (Answer 3) that the “tap density” and “mass mean
diameter” ranges disclosed by Edwards overlap the “bulk density” and
“particle size” or “mass median diameter” ranges recited in claims 20 and 51.
Edwards states that the compositions “are effective carriers for
delivery of therapeutic agents to the deep lung[,] . . . avoid phagocytosis in
the deep lung,” and have “improved aerosolization properties and optimized
particle-particle interactions” (Edwards 5). Edwards discloses that “[a]ny of
a variety of therapeutic or prophylactic agents can be incorporated within the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013