Appeal No. 2007-0542
Application No. 10/301,185
6. Frey describes “a method for delivering neurologic agents to the
brain by means of the olfactory neural pathway.” Col. 1, ll. 12-14.
7. The neurologic agents are administered to a patient’s nasal cavity,
where they are absorbed by the peripheral olfactory neurons which innervate
the cavity. Col. 2, l. 50 to col. 3, l. 20. The agents are transported along the
olfactory neuronal pathway into the brain. Id.
8. NGF and FGF are in a list of preferred neurologic agents. Col. 3,
ll. 50-55. NGF is among a list of two “particularly preferred” agents. Col.
3, ll. 55-57. FGF is recited in claim 1 for use in Frey’s method. Col. 9, ll.
15. NGF is recited in claim 8. Col. 10, ll. 16.
9. The Examiner asserts that “Frey clearly teaches the ability of the
claimed proteins to reach the trigeminal nerves when applied to the sites,
which are enriched with these nerves.” Answer 6.
Cronk
10. Cronk teaches a nasal strip that can be applied across the bridge
of the nose. Col. 4, ll. 16-26. The strip can comprise a transdermal drug.
Col. 4, l. 64-65. Cronk lists at least twelve classes of agents which can be
transdermal delivered by its nasal strip, including “wound healing agents.”
Col. 11, l. 18-63.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner bears the initial burden of showing unpatentability.
See, e.g., In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be
some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013