Ex Parte Hughes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2011

11364687 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte PATRICK M. HUGHES, THOMAS C. MALONE,
GERALD W. DE VRIES, JEFFREY L. EDELMAN,
WENDY M. BLANDA, LON T. SPADA,
PETER BACIU, and SCOTT M. WHITCUP

__________

Appeal 2010-012145
Application 11/364,687
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 11, 13-19, and 21-27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-012145
Application 11/364,687

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A sustained-release intraocular drug delivery system comprising:
a therapeutic component comprising an antiangiogenic peptide
component; and
a polymeric component associated with the therapeutic component to
permit the therapeutic component to be released into the interior of an eye of
an individual at a therapeutically effective dosage for a period of time after
the drug delivery system is placed in the eye, wherein the therapeutic
component comprises a antiangiogenic peptide component selected from the
group consisting of ranibizumab, bevacizumab, VEGF-inhibiting derivatives
and fragments of these, and combinations thereof.

Claims 1-3, 11, 13-19, and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Bhushan1 and
Wrasidlo.2
We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellants’ arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. As to the argument as to the separate
patentability of claims 26 and 27, that Bhushan requires a chelating agent
and penetration enhancer (App. Br. 5), Appellants have not established by
evidence or scientific reasoning that the ordinary artisan would expect that to
alter the release characteristics of the polymeric matrix. We also agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 5) that it would have been obvious and well within the
level of skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust the amount of active agent
released.

1 Bhushan, US 2004/0137068 A1, Jul. 15, 2004.
2 Wrasidlo et al., US 2004/0167198 A1, Aug. 26, 2004.
Appeal 2010-012145
Application 11/364,687

3
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

LMG

cdc