Appeal 2007-0526
Application 10/141,032
As discussed above, Edwards teaches particles having the physical
properties recited in claims 20 and 51. Edwards teaches that the particles
can be prepared by spray-drying solutions containing the phospholipid and
drug (see, e.g., Edwards 41-42 (Example 9), 42-43 (Example 10)). Thus,
Edwards describes formulations having the same physical properties as
recited in the claims, prepared by the same technique. We therefore find that
the Examiner was reasonable in concluding that Edwards’ formulations meet
the interpatient variability limitation in claim 20. Because Edwards teaches
that specific drug delivery advantages come from inhaling the described
formulations, one of ordinary skill would have considered it obvious to have
used Edwards’ formulations to deliver inhaled drugs such as tobramycin.
Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection does not consider the
claimed invention as a whole (Br. 8-10). Appellants argue that “Edwards et
al. does not mention tobramycin and does not teach the claimed method of
administering tobramycin to the lungs of a patient using the claimed
particles. Instead, Edwards generally teaches methods of preparing particles
for inhalation” (id. at 8). Appellants urge that a general teaching regarding
particle formation for use in preparing inhaled powders “is not a teaching to
a particular method of administering tobramycin to a patient’s lungs with
specific particles as claimed,” nor does it “suggest the particular particle size
limitations and tobramycin composition of the claimed method, which
achieve high dosage levels while reduced interpatient inspiration variability”
(id.).
Appellants argue that Vaghefi does not compensate for Edwards’
deficiencies “because Vaghefi teaches the generalized structure of a dry
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013