Ex Parte Grawe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

13690736 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/690,736 11/30/2012 Detlef GRAWE SCH-2139-C01-D01 1228
23599 7590 12/08/2016
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
EXAMINER
BADIO, BARBARA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@mwzb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DETLEF GRAWE, SABINE GLIESING, HAGEN GERECKE,
PETER HOESEL, UWE MUELLER, THOMAS MICHEL,
ROBERT EILERS, UWE KNABE, BERND ERHART,
MICHAEL MOSEBACH, DAVID VOIGTLAENDER, ULF TILSTAM,
JURGEN JACKE, KLAUS BAHL, ULF BOHLMANN,
DIETER WEHMEIER, and MICHAEL SANDER
Appeal 2015-004471
Application 13/690,736
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and DAVID COTTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 1—16, 18—20,
and 22—26 (Br. 3). Examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “BAYER PHARMA AG”
(Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-004471
Application 13/690,736
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. Amorphous, physically pure asoprisnil microparticles
obtainable by a method comprising reacting
17P-Hydroxyestra-4,9-dien-3-one (hydroxyestradienone)
1
3,3-Dimethoxyestra-5(10),9(l l)-diene-17-one (nordienedione
ketal)
1
3,3,17 P-Trimethoxy-17 a-methoxymethylestra-5( 10),9( 11)-
diene (trimethoxydiene)
1
4- [ 17 P-Methoxy-17 a(methoxymethyl)-3 -oxoestra-4,9-dien-
1 ip-yl]-benzaldehyde (dienone aldehyde)
1
11P- [4-(Hydroxyiminomethyl)-phenyl-17 P-methoxy- 17 a-
methoxymethyl-estra4,9-dien-3-one (asoprisnil)
by a process comprising:
a) synthesizing nordienedione ketal from hydroxyestradienone
either
> by oxidation of 17P-hydroxyestra-4,9-dien-3-one
(hydroxyestradienone) to estra-4,9-diene-3,17-dione
(nordienedione) and subsequent selective ketalization to 3,3
dimethoxyestra-5(10),9(ll)-diene-17-one (nordienedione ketal)
or
> ketalizing hydroxyestradienone to 17P-hydroxy-3,3-
dimethoxyestra-5(10),9(l l)-diene (hydroxy ketal) and
subsequently oxidizing to nordienedione ketal,
b) synthesizing trimethoxydiene from nordienedione ketal in
three steps via the stages 3,3-dimethoxyestra-5(10),9(ll)-diene-
17P-spiro-l’,2’-oxirane (nordienespirane) and 3,3-dimethoxy-
17a-methoxymethylestra-5(10),9(l l)-dien-17P-ol (nordiene
ether), not isolating nordienespirane and nordiene ether,
2
Appeal 2015-004471
Application 13/690,736
c) synthesizing 3,3,17P-trimethoxy-l ip-[4-(dimethoxy-
methyl)phenyl]-17a-methoxymethylestr-9-en-5a-ol (dimethoxy
acetal) from trimethoxydiene via 17a(methoxymethyl)-3,3,17P-
trimethoxy-5a,10a-epoxyestr-9(l l)-ene (enepoxide) in a Cu(I)-
catalyzed Grignard reaction with bromobenzaldehyde dimethyl
acetal,
d) synthesizing the dienone aldehyde by reaction with acids,
e) synthesizing asoprisnil from dienone aldehyde with a
hydroxyamine hydrochloride solution,
f) purifying by chromatography,
g) drying.
(Br. 5-6.)
Claims 1—16, 18—20, and 22—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Grawe.2
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support
Examiner’s finding that Grawe teaches Appellants’ claimed invention?
ANALYSIS
Examiner finds that Grawe anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention
(Ans. 2—5). We adopt Examiner’s findings concerning the scope and content
of the prior art (Ans. 2—5). In this regard, Examiner finds that “[t]he
compound and compositions taught by [Grawe] are encompassed by
[Appellants’] claim[]” 1 and “the patentability of a product does not depend
on it[s] method of production” (Ans. 3 and 4). Examiner further finds that
Grawe teaches “that under [the] ICH-stability test, the amorphous structure
2 Grawe et al., WO 01/90137 A2, published Nov. 29, 2001, Examiner relies
on the “English equivalent” of this reference, Grawe et al., US
2004/0006241 Al, published Jan. 8, 2004 (see Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2015-004471
Application 13/690,736
[of Grawe’s product] does not show any signs of a recrystallization and/or
chemical decomposition after 12 months” (Ans. 5, citing Grawe 127).
Appellants contend that Grawe discloses “the preparation of asoprisnl
[sic] on a laboratory scale” not “on a pilot or manufacturing scale” (Br. 3).
We are not persuaded. As Examiner explains, Appellants’ “claims[,] as
recited[,] are drawn to ‘amorphous, physically pure asoprisnil
microparticles” and do not require the production of any particular amount
of the compound (Ans. 4—5).
For the reasons provided by Examiner, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ contentions regarding the ICH-stability of the claimed product
(see Ans. 5; cf Br. 3^4).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence on this record supports Examiner’s
finding that Grawe teaches Appellants’ claimed invention. The rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grawe is affirmed.
Claims 2—16, 18—20, and 22—27 are not separately argued and fall with claim
1.
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
4