Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

13600661 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017)

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.
13/600,661 08/31/2012 Ronald Stewart Hill P63782 1010US.C2 6847
(0033.2)
26158 7590 02/07/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
SCHUBERG, LAURA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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):
IPDocketing@WCSR.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD STEWART HILL, RICHARD CHRIS KLANN, and
FRANCIS V. LAMBERTI
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
Technology Center 1600
Before LORA M. GREEN, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims directed to connective tissue regenerative
compositions. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner’s
rejections are affirmed-in-part.
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 5, 8—23, and 52—65. Appeal Br. 2.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—23, and 52—65 are pending and stand rejected by
the Examiner as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of WO 03/072155 Al, published Sept. 4, 2003, to Lamberti
et al. (hereinafter “Lamberti”) and US 2002/0169120 Al, published Nov. 14,
2002, to Blanchat et al. (hereinafter “Blanchat”). Ans. 2.
2. Claims 9—11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious in view of
Lamberti, Blanchat, and Jennings (Effect of formulation on lyophilization,
part 1, IVD Technology, 1997) (hereinafter “Jennings”). Id.
3. Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Lamberti, Blanchat, and US 2005/0176620 Al, published Aug. 11, 2005, to
Prestwich et al. (hereinafter “Prestwich”). Id.
4. Claims 52—62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Blanchat and US 5,972,385, issued Oct. 26, 1999, to Liu et al. (hereinafter
“Liu”) and Prestwich. Id., 3.
5. Claims 63—65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Blanchat, Liu, Prestwich, and US 6,261,587 Bl, issued July 17, 2001, to
Usala (hereinafter “Usala ’587”). Id.
6. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of US
2002/0176893 Al, published Nov. 28, 2002, to Wironen et al. (hereinafter
“Wironen”) and Blanchat. Id.
Claims 1, 23, and 52 are representative and read as follows:
2
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
1. A connective tissue regenerative composition
comprising:
a bioactive hydrogel matrix that is thermoreversible so as
to be adapted to be molten at physiologic conditions, the
bioactive hydrogel matrix comprising a polypeptide and a long
chain carbohydrate that are combined to form a proteoglycan-
type structure, the bioactive hydrogel matrix being in a
dehydrated, particulate form; and
an osteoinductive or osteoconductive material comprising
hydroxyapatite.
23. A connective tissue regenerative composition
comprising:
a bioactive hydrogel matrix comprising a polypeptide and
a long chain carbohydrate that are combined to form a
proteoglycan-type structure; and an osteoinductive or
osteoconductive material comprising hydroxyapatite; wherein
the composition is in a cast form adapted for integration into a
bone defect.
52. A connective tissue regenerative composition
comprising:
a bioactive hydrogel matrix comprising a polypeptide
covalently crosslinked with a long chain carbohydrate, the
bioactive hydrogel matrix being in a dehydrated form; and
an osteoinductive or osteoconductive material comprising
hydroxyapatite.
1-3. LAMBERTI REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is directed to connective tissue regenerate composition that
comprises, inter alia, “a bioactive hydrogel matrix that is thermoreversible
so as to be adapted to be molten at physiologic conditions.” The matrix also
comprises hydroxyapatite.
3
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
The Examiner found that the thermoreversible limitation is not
described in the Provisional Application 60/513,392 (“the ’392
Application”) to which the application involved in this appeal (“the ’661
Application”). Based on this determination, the Examiner determined
Lamberti is prior art and rejected the claims as obvious in view of Lamberti
and additionally cited publications. See Rejections 1—3 above.
Lamberti was published Sept. 3, 2003, which is more than a year
before the Oct. 22, 2004 filing date of the predecessor applications1 of the
’661 Application, but less than a year before the ’392 Application priority
date of Oct. 22, 2003. The inventors of Lamberti are F. Lamberti, R. Klann,
and R. Hill, who are the same inventors of the ’661 Application.
Consequently, Lamberti does not quality as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a) and 102(b) if the ’661 Application is entitled to the provisional
filing date of the ’392 Application.
The Examiner found that the “concept of a thermoreversible hydrogel
has been added to the ’544 Application in a paragraph at page 9 lines 4-12.”
Ans. 5. The ‘661 Application is a continuation of the ’544 Application
(Serial No. 10/971,544) and therefore has the same disclosure. The
Examiner stated that the claimed thermoreversible property “is described in
detail [in the ’544 Application] without requiring specific concentrations,
temperatures or components.” Id. The Examiner further stated that it is
“clear from the addition of this paragraph to the ’544 application that the
general concept of making any and all of the embodiments of the hydrogel
1 The ’661 Application is a continuation of 12/039,214 (filed 02/28/2008)
which is a continuation of 10/971,544 (filed 10/22/2004) which claims
benefit of 60/513,392 (filed 10/22/2003).
4
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
thermoreversible did not occur until the later date of the ’544 application.”
Id.
Discussion
Appellants rely on the following disclosure from the ’392 Application
to provide a written description of the claimed “a bioactive hydrogel matrix
that is thermoreversible”:
The matrix comprises a gelatin component. . . .
’392 Appl. 8 (“Components of the Matrix”)
The gelatin is present at a concentration of about 0.01 to
about 40 mM, preferably about 0.05 to about 30 mM, most
preferably about 1 to about 5 mM. Advantageously, the gelatin
concentration is approximately 1.6 mM. The above
concentrations provide a solid phase at storage temperature
(below about 33 °C) and a liquid phase at treatment temperature
(about 35 to about 40 °C). Intact collagen may be added in small
amounts to provide an additional binding network. The final
concentration of intact collagen is from about 0 to about 5 mM,
preferably 0 to about 2 mM, most preferably about 0.05 to about
0.5 mM.
’392 Appl. 9.
Appellants argue that, based on this disclosure in the ’392
Application, the inventors had possession of a “thermoreversible” matrix
“adapted to be molten at physiologic conditions” because the disclosure
describes the matrix solid at a higher temperature and liquid (“molten”) at a
physiological conditions, i.e., at a temperature at about 35 °C to about 40 °C.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants’ argument is factually-based. The Examiner did
not provide persuasive evidence or arguments to the contrary. Accordingly,
we find that the ’392 Application describes “a bioactive hydrogel matrix that
5
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
is thermoreversible so as to be adapted to be molten at physiologic
conditions.”
The Examiner takes issue with the description in the ’392 Application
of specific gelatin concentrations in the matrix. See ’392 Application at
page 9 reproduced above. Based on these specifically recited amounts of
gelatin, the Examiner found that “the general concept of making any and all
of the embodiments of the hydrogel thermoreversible did not occur until the
later date of the ’544 application” when allegedly broader disclosure
appeared for the first time. Ans. 5.
While concentrations of gelatin are described in the ’392 Application,
these amounts are said to provide for a thermoreversible gel, i.e., liquid at
physiological temperature and solid at lower temperatures. Similar
concentrations are also described in the ’661 Application (at 13:6—11) and its
predecessors. The disclosure of these specific concentrations does not mean
that the inventors did not have possession of a thermoreversible gel. Rather,
the concentrations enabled one skilled in the art to make one. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s argument that the inventors did not
have possession of the general concept of a thermoreversible gel.
The disclosure referred to by the Examiner in the ’544 Application
which is said to teach the general concept of a thermoreversible gel is as
follows:
The formulation of a thermoreversible hydrogel matrix
providing a cell culture medium and composition for preserving
cell viability is taught by U.S. Patent No. 6,231,881, herein
incorporated by reference in its entirety. Additionally, a
hydrogel matrix useful in promoting vascularization is provided
in U.S. Patent No. 6,261,587, herein incorporated by reference
in its entirety. The thermoreversible hydrogel matrix taught by
6
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
these references is a gel at storage temperatures and molten at
physiologic temperatures, and comprises a combination of a
collagen-derived component, such as gelatin, a long chain
carbohydrate, such as dextran, and effective amounts of other
components, such as polar amino acids.
’544 Appl. 9.
This disclosure referenced by the Examiner is actually a discussion of
the prior art thermoreversible hydrogel matrices.2 We find the disclosure on
page 13, lines 6—11, of the ’661 Application (and in the ’544 Application
which has the identical paragraph) is more informative because it provides
the necessary enablement to make a thermoreversible matrix as claimed.
Such disclosure specifically refers to making a thermoreversible matrix with
gelatin concentrations similar to those recited in the ’392 Application. The
disclosure is reproduced below:
The polypeptide, such as gelatin, is preferentially present
at a concentration of about 0.01 to about 40 mM, preferably
about 0.05 to about 30 mM, most preferably about 0.25 to about
5 mM. Advantageously, the gelatin concentration is
approximately 0.75 mM. The above concentrations provide a
non-flowable phase at storage temperature (below about 33 °C)
and a flowable phase at treatment temperature (about 35 to
about 40 °C).
’661 Appl. 13:6-11.
This disclosure, as does the corresponding disclosure in the
’392 Application, describes the thermoreversible hydrogel matrix as
made of gelatin (the “above concentrations [of gelatin] provide a non-
2 The Examiner did not cite either of these patents in a rejection of claim 1.
In addition to these patents, U.S. Pat. No. 7,799,767 (filed Feb. 21, 2003)
also discloses thermoreversible gels, as well as gels comprising
hydroxyapatite. U.S. Pat. No. 7,799,767 lists the same inventors as the
inventors of the ’661 Application.
7
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
flowable phase at storage temperature . . . and a flowable phase at
treatment temperature”). Accordingly, we conclude that the claimed
thermoreversible hydrogel matrix is described in the provisional
application and that such matrix comprises gelatin to achieve its
thermoreversible properties.
Because claim 1 is described in the ’392 Application, Lamberti
does not qualify as prior art to the claims. Rejections 1, 2, and 3 of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8—22 are reversed.
4. BLANCHAT, LIU, & PRESTWICH REJECTION
Claim 52 is directed to a connective tissue regenerative composition
comprising: a bioactive hydrogel matrix comprising 1) a polypeptide
covalently crosslinked with 2) a long chain carbohydrate, and 3)
hydroxyapatite. The bioactive hydrogel matrix is in a dehydrated form.
Claim 53, which depends from claim 52, recites that the matrix comprises
gelatin (polypeptide (1) of claim 52) crosslinked with oxidized dextran
(carbohydrate (2) of claim 52). The Specification of the ’661 Application
teaches that collagen can be a gelatin. Spec. 9:19-20
The following findings of fact are pertinent to the obviousness
determination:
Blanchat
B1. Blanchat describes “biomaterial for preparing a repair or filing
material, such as an implant, for osteoarticular, dental or maxillofacial
applications.” Blanchat, Abstract.
8
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
B2. The biomaterial is comprised of an insolubilized dextran
derivative. Id., 130.
B3. The biomaterial also acts as a reservoir for an added growth
factor. Id., Tflf 54—56.
B4. The biomaterial can further comprise a tissue filling material
which can be collagen and gelatin. Id., 1 66.
B5. The biomaterial can also comprise a filling material which is an
osteoconductive material, selected from a group that includes
hydroxyapatite, and a mixture of collagen and hydroxyapatite. Id., 1 67.
B6. Blanchat describes a process for making the biomaterial
comprising crosslinking the dextran, producing a hydrogel, and optionally
freeze-drying the hydrogel to obtain the biomaterial in the form of a powder.
Id., 11 69-73.
B7. Blanchat discloses crosslinking the dextran derivative “in the
presence of an osteoconductive filling material as described above.” Id., 1
75.
B8. Claim 17 of Blanchat teaches a process of cross-linking dextran
in the presence of a tissue filling material. Id., 110.
Liu
Liul. Liu describes a “matrix and a method for preparing it are
provided to support the growth of tissue, such as bone, cartilage or soft
tissue.” Liu, Abstract.
Liu2. Liu describes “crosslinked collagen-polysaccharide matrices”
for “repair of tissue, such as bone, cartilage and soft tissue.” Id., col. 2,11.
19-22.
9
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
Liu3. The polysaccharide can include dextran. Id., col. 2,11. 26—29.
Rejection
The Examiner found that Blanchat describes a biomaterial comprising
1) a polypeptide (collagen or gelatin); 2) a long chain carbohydrate
(insolubilized dextran); and 3) hydroxyapatite as in claim 52. Final Rej. 10;
B2, B4, B5. The Examiner found that Blanchat describes crosslinking of its
biomaterial. Final Rej. 10; B6—B8. The Examiner also found that Liu
describes a matrix for the same purpose as Blanchat. Final Rej. 12; Bl,
Liul. The Examiner found that Liu describes collagen and gelatin as in
Blanchat, and specifically teaches crosslinking them. Final Rej. 12; Liu2.
Based on these teachings, the Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to crosslink the polypeptide and long chain carbohydrate as required
by claim 1 for the advantages described by Liu and because Blanchat
describes crosslinking the long chain carbohydrate (dextran) in the presence
of a filling material that includes collagen. Final Rej. 12—13; B7, B8, Liu2.
Discussion
Appellants contend that Blanchat does not describe the materials as
presently claimed and it would not be predicted that “the insolubilized
dextran of Blanchat is capable of crosslinking with a polypeptide or that
crosslinking a soluble dextran with a polypeptide would predictably achieve
the same results as achieved with the insolubilized dextran.” Appeal Br. 15—
16.
Blanchat expressly teaches a biomaterial comprising 2) a long chain
carbohydrate which is insolubilized dextran. B2. The biomaterial can also
10
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
comprise 1) a polypeptide which is collagen (B4, B5) and 3) hydroxyapatite
(B5). Blanchat, as found by the Examiner (Final Rej. 12—13), describes
performing crosslinking of the dextran in the presence of a tissue filling
material (collagen is an example) and in the presence of an osteoconductive
material (collagen and hydroxyapatite is an example). B4—B8. Because
crosslinking of the dextran can be performed in the presence of the collagen,
it would be reasonable to believe that the dextran would crosslink with
collagen as required by claim 52.
Appellants contend that it would not be predicted that crosslinking
would be achieved between these components. Appeal Br. 16. However,
Liu expressly teaches crosslinking between dextran and collagen (Liu2),
providing a reason to crosslink the two components, as well as a reasonable
expectation of success that crosslinking would occur. Thus, based on Liu’s
disclosure, the Examiner had factual basis to conclude the two components
would crosslink, shifting the burden to Appellants to show that the Examiner
erred. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s determination is
erroneous.
Although there is no working example in Blanchat of components 1) a
polypeptide (collagen or gelatin), 2) a long chain carbohydrate (insolubilized
dextran), and 3) hydroxyapatite, Blanchat describes all three and specifically
describes the combination of collagen and hydroxyapatite. B5. Additionally,
Liu describes the combination of collagen and dextran in crosslinked form
for the same purpose as Blanchat (Bl, Liul, Liu2), providing a reason to
have chosen these components from Blanchat. Consequently, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that
11
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to pick all three
components. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence to the
contrary.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Rejection 4 of claim 52.
Claims 53—62 were not argued separately and fall with claim 52.
5. BLANCHET, LIU, PRESTWICH, & US ALA ’587 REJECTION
Claims 63—65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
view of Blanchat, Liu, Prestwich, and Usala ’587.
Claim 63 depends from claim 52, and further recites that the matrix
comprises “one or more components selected from the group consisting of
polar amino acids, polar amino acid analogs or derivatives, divalent cation
chelators, and combination thereof.” Claims 64 and 65 depend from claim
63.
The Examiner found:
Usala teaches a hydrogel matrix that contains collagen
(gelatin) bound to dextran (column 2 lines 23-53). The matrix is
taught to be used with connective tissue cells (column 7 line 43)
and to be applied to any tissue or site in need of repair or
healing such as those resulting from inflammation, injury or
surgery (column 7 lines 55-62) and specifically include joints as
a site of repair (column 7 lines 1-9). Polar amino acids ... are
taught to be beneficially included to increase the rigidity of the
matrix and further enhance binding of the collagen fragments to
the polar surface of basement membranes (column 4 lines 23-
35). A divalent chelator such as EDTA is taught to be
beneficially included as it increases the rigidity of the matrix
and also protects against microbial contamination of the matrix
(column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to include polar amino acids and EDTA in the
12
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
biomaterial of Blanchet et al because Usala teaches that these
agents provide beneficial features to a biomaterial that contains
collagen and dextrin.
Final Rej. 13—14.
The following findings from Usala ’587 is pertinent to the
obviousness rejection:
Usala ’587
U587-1. Usala ’587 discloses a hydrogel matrix containing
“denatured collagen fragments loosely bound to dextran, which bind to the
exposed polar surface of the basement membrane.” U587, col. 2,11. 40-42.
U587-2. “Within a few hours, the aqueous portion of the matrix is
absorbed by the surrounding tissue, leaving only the peptide fragments
bound to the exposed polar surfaces.” Id., col. 2,11. 45—48.
U587-3. “Denatured collagen contains polar and non-polar amino
acids that readily form a gel based on amine, carboxyl group, hydroxyl
group, and sulfhydryl group interactions.” Id., col. 3,11. 2—5.
U587-4. “The matrix of the present invention may optionally include
a divalent chelator which increases the rigidity of the matrix by removing
inhibition of -NH2 to -COOH hydrogen bonding.” Id., col. 3,1. 66 to col. 4,
1. 2.
U587-5. “The matrix may contain an effective amount of polar amino
acids therein. . . . An effective amount is the amount necessary to increase
the rigidity of the matrix and further enhance binding of the collagen
fragment to the polar surface of the basement membrane.” Id., col. 4,11. 24—
31.
13
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
Discussion
Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have added the divalent cation chelator EDTA to
Blanchat’s hydrogel.
Usala teaches a non-crosslinked, free-flowing composition.
Usala teaches that EDTA may increase rigidity of such non-
crosslinked, free-flowing composition by removing inhibition
of hydrogen bonding. Usala also states that polar amino acids
increase rigidity of the non-crosslinked, free-flowing
composition but does not provide any technical reason therefor.
Again, the basis of Blanchat is the use of a specifically
insolubilized dextran as a carrier for growth factors. Blanchat
teaches that the insolubilized dextran is in a solid form due to
crosslinking of the dextran. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would not predict that the use of a material that simply removes
inhibition of hydrogen bonding would find any use in a
specifically insolubilized dextran material that is provided in a
solid form due to crosslinking of the material.
Appeal Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have found it predictable that EDTA would
increase the rigidity of the hydrogel of Blanchat and Liu. While it is true
that Usala ’587’s composition is not crosslinked (U587-1, -2), Usala ’587
describes the mechanism by which EDTA acts to increase rigidity: by
removing inhibition of hydrogen bonding between—NH2 (amine) and —
COOH (carboxyl) groups (U587-4). Usala ’587 specifically teaches that
collagen contains amine and carboxyl groups. U587-3. Thus, collagen
would benefit from EDTA by making it more rigid. Consequently, since
Blanchat and Liu comprise collagen (B4, B5, Liu2), one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably expected that adding EDTA to a gel
comprising collagen would increase its rigidity for the same reason
14
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
described by Usala ’587. The Examiner’s basis for the obviousness
rejection is therefore supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner reasonably found that Blanchat’s biomaterial would
benefit from increased rigidity:
The fact that Blanchat et al also indicates that their composition
is intended for the preparation of a repair or filling material for
osteoarticular, dental or maxillofacial applications (page 4 para
81) suggests that the composition would benefit from any
ingredients that strengthen and enhance the repair of the rigid
material of bone and teeth.
Final Rej. 19.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Rejection 5 of claim 63, and
dependent claims 64 and 65 which were not argued separately.
6. WIRONEN & BLANCHAT REJECTION
Claim 23 is directed to a connective tissue regenerative composition
comprising: a bioactive hydrogel matrix comprising (1) a polypeptide and
(2) a long chain carbohydrate that are combined to form a proteoglycan-type
structure; and (3) hydroxyapatite. The composition “is in a cast form
adapted for integration into a bone defect.”
The Examiner found that Wironen describes making a composition
that includes a proteoglycan which the Examiner determined “inherently
contains both a core protein (polypeptide) and one or more
glycosaminoglycan chains (long chain carbohydrate).” Final Rej. 15. The
Examiner also found that composition can comprise hydroxyapatite. Id.
The Examiner cited Blanchat for teaching a composition in cast form. Id. at
17.
15
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
Appellants states that claim 23 “recites that the combined polypeptide
and long chain carbohydrate form a proteoglycan-type structure.” Appeal
Br. 14. Appellants contend that “[t]he disclosure of Wironen that its
compositions may include proteoglycans does not teach a polypeptide and
long chain carbohydrate that, when combined, form a proteoglycan-type
structure.” Id. Appellants argue: “Nothing in Wironen teaches that a
polypeptide and a long chain carbohydrate may be combined to achieve a
proteoglycan-type structure. Wironen only teaches that proteoglycans have
proteoglycan-type structures.” Id. Appellants further argue: “The Office
has pointed to nothing in Wironen showing that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining a
polypeptide and a carbohydrate to form a hydrogel that has a proteoglycan-
type structure.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
determining that claim 23 is obvious in view of Wironen and Blanchat.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Wironen
describes a composition comprising a proteoglycan. It appears from their
argument that Appellants are attempting to distinguish the claimed recitation
of a polypeptide and long chain carbohydrate “that are combined to form a
proteoglycan-type structure” from Wironen’s disclosure of a proteoglycan
(Wironen | 67). However, we have not been directed to evidence that
Wironen’s proteoglycan is structurally different from a “proteoglycan-type
structure,” in which a polypeptide and long chain carbohydrate “are
combined to form” the structure. If this is a product-by-process claim, then
Appellants have not explained how the process of combining the
polypeptide and long chain carbohydrate would give rise to a different
16
Appeal 2015-008309
Application 13/600,661
structure than the claimed “proteoglycan-type structure.” Appellants have
also not provided evidence that proteoglycan-type structure is different from
a proteoglycan. Indeed, Appellants have inexplicably admitted “Wironen
only teaches that proteoglycans have proteoglycan-type structures.” App. Br.
14. Consequently, the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s
determination that Wironen describes a composition with a proteoglycan-
type structure as claimed. Rejection 6 of claim 23 is affirmed.
SUMMARY
Rejections 1, 2, 3 are reversed.
Rejections 4, 5, and 6 are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17