Sahagian, Michael Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20202019005021 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 12/294,004 05/20/2009 Michael Sahagian BERESKINPARR002 5847 93756 7590 05/28/2020 Adam R. Stephenson, LTD. 8350 E Raintree Dr., Ste 245 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 EXAMINER COX, AMBER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2020 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): adam@iptech.law ipdocket@iptech.law PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL SAHAGIAN Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20–23, 28–39, and 42–44.3 An oral hearing was held on May 18, 2020. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed September 22, 2008 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 4, 2018 (“Final”); Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated April 18, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed June 17, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as McCain Foods Limited. Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to the Specification, acrylamide is generated by the Maillard reaction between amino acids, e.g., asparagine, and reducing sugars when heat treating root vegetables. Spec. 1:14–16. The invention relates to a method of surface modifying root vegetable products to reduce acrylamide formation. Id. at 1:4–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the inventive method: 1. A method of modifying a root vegetable product comprising: blanching the root vegetable product in a blancher; contacting the surface of the root vegetable product with an effective amount of asparaginase in order to modify the surface of the root vegetable product; drying the root vegetable product in a dryer while contacting the surface with the asparaginase; wherein the asparaginase is contacted with the surface by spraying the asparaginase on the surface immediately prior to, or during, the drying step, and the spraying occurs i) during conveying the root vegetable product on a conveyor from the blancher to the dryer, or ii) at the time that the root vegetable product is at, or proximate to, the inlet of the dryer; wherein the contacting step and the drying step are partially concurrent or fully concurrent; wherein the root vegetable product is dried at an applied heated air temperature and an applied relative humidity suitable for i) drying the root vegetable product and ii) maintaining asparaginase activity so that asparaginase activity and resulting surface modification occur substantially or entirely during the drying step; Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 3 wherein the root vegetable product is dried between about 30°C and about 50°C and at a relative humidity between about 40% and about 80%, and wherein the drying step is less than 30 minutes and greater than about 5 minutes. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Name Reference Date Zyzak Lindsay Plank Lynglev US 2004/0058046 A1 US 2004/0224066 A1 US 2005/0037123 A1 US 2006/0275879 A1 Mar. 25, 2004 Nov. 11, 2004 Feb. 17, 2005 Dec. 7, 2006 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 30–39, and 42–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zyzak and Lynglev. 2. Claims 14, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zyzak, Lynglev, and Plank. 3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zyzak, Lynglev, and Lindsay. OPINION The Examiner found that Zyzak suggests the claim 1 method for reducing acrylamide in a root vegetable product except that Zyzak does not expressly disclose that “the root vegetable product is dried between about Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 4 30°C and about 50°C and at a relative humidity between about 40% and about 80%, and . . . the drying step is less than 30 minutes and greater than about 5 minutes” (claim 1). See Final 4–9. The Examiner found, however, that Zyzak describes a known relationship between enzyme activity and heating temperature. Id. at 5. The Examiner also found that Zyzak discloses that “optimal pH and temperature conditions for specific enzymes are typically available in the literature and/or from enzyme suppliers.” Id. (quoting Zyzak ¶ 41). The Examiner found that Lynglev discloses treating root vegetable products with asparaginase during heating to reduce acrylamide production. Final 7. The Examiner further found that Lynglev discloses a temperature activity profile for asparaginase. Id. The Examiner determined that because Lynglev demonstrates asparaginase activity of greater than 0.50 (50%) at temperatures of 37 ⁰C, 50 ⁰C, and 60 ⁰C, and denaturation at 70 ⁰C, “it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to dry the root vegetable product of Zyzak . . . within the claimed range” (id. at 7) of “between about 30°C and about 50°C” (claim 1). The Examiner also found that achieving the claimed drying time of “less than 30 minutes and greater than about 5 minutes” would have been a matter of routine optimization. See Final 9. The Appellant does not dispute the above findings of fact. See generally Appeal Br. 3–7. As to the claim 1 requirement that drying occurs “at a relative humidity between about 40% and about 80%,” the Examiner found that because it is well known within the art that relative humidity and temperature are related and given that Zyzak . . . teach[es] drying the asparaginase treated food product in a suitable dryer Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 5 . . . [and] that Lynglev . . . suggest[s] temperatures at which asparaginase activity occurs, it would have been well within the skill level of one [of] ordinary skill in the art to adjust the relative humidity according to the dryer used and in order to achieve sufficient asparaginase activity (enzymatic reaction). Final 8 (“[I]t has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.” (citing In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1954))). As further discussed below, the Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that humidity was recognized as a result effective variable in an enzymatic treatment method’s drying step. The Appellant argues that “[t]he [E]xaminer’s reliance upon Stevens is misplaced as that case involved the predictable art area of fishing poles, not the unexpected area of enzymatic food treatment.” Appeal Br. 5. The Appellant argues that “the principles set forth in In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) are more relevant to the present [issue]” of “whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the humidity conditions in the Zyzak dr[y]er during . . . enzymatic treatment.” Appeal Br. 6. In Antonie, the predecessor to our reviewing court held that an exception to “the rule that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious” is the case “in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable.” 559 F.2d at 620. The Appellant argues that because the applied references do not document the effect that varying dryer temperature and humidity levels has on residual acrylamide content in root vegetables, the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that adjusting the relative humidity to achieve sufficient asparaginase activity would have been a matter of routine optimization. Appeal Br. 6; see also Ans. 21 (“In summary, it is the appellant’s stance that Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 6 since neither Zyzak nor Lynglev provide[s] evidence that the humidity level in the Zyzak dryer would have any effect on the results, i.e. humidity was not recognized to be a result effective variable, the examiner’s rejection is in error.”). The Examiner “acknowledge[s] that the chemical arts are often unpredictable,” but maintains that Zyzak’s express statements that “a skilled artisan should readily be able to determine optimal conditions of temperature and other parameters (e.g., water content), which affect enzymatic activity and that the optimal temperature conditions for specific enzymes can be found in literature,” would have “provide[d] sufficient motivation to those having ordinary skill in the art to optimize parameters that affect enzymatic activity, such as temperature and water content.” Ans. 21–22; see also Final 5 (“As known in the art, pH and temperature are factors that affect enzymatic activity. One skilled in the art should readily be able to determine optimal conditions of these and other parameters (e.g. water content).” (emphasis added) (quoting Zyzak ¶ 41)). The Examiner argues that Lynglev provides guidance to select the optimal temperature for asparaginase activity and that the ordinary artisan “would also [have been] capable of determining the optimal relative humidity . . . [because] the very definition of relative humidity demonstrates the relationship” between temperature and relative humidity. Ans. 23 (citing Collins English Dictionary and American Heritage Science Dictionary). Before discussing the Appellant’s argument that adjusting the relative humidity would not have been a matter of routine optimization (see Appeal Br. 5–6), we address the Appellant’s argument that the Examiner raises a new ground of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 3). The Appellant requests Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 7 that we “disregard[] the undesignated new ground of rejection and decide[] the appeal based upon the stated rejection found in the final office action.” Id. at 4. We determine that because the Appellant failed to file a timely petition to the Director, the Appellant waived its right to seek review of the Examiner’s Answer as improperly raising a new ground of rejection without designating it as such. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40 (2018) (“Any request to seek review of the primary examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer must be by way of a petition to the Director under § 1.181 of this title filed within two months from the entry of the examiner’s answer and before the filing of any reply brief. Failure of appellant to timely file such a petition will constitute a waiver of any arguments that a rejection must be designated as a new ground of rejection.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, we disagree with the Appellant’s contention that the rejection should have been designated as a new ground. The Appellant argues that the Answer raises a new ground of rejection because the Examiner relies on a new theory, summarized by the Appellant as follows: “Even though Zyzak et al. fail to expressly disclose relative humidity, the express recitation of one of ordinary skill in the art being readily able to determine ‘other parameters’ in addition to temperature and water content cannot be ignored.” Reply Br. 4. The Appellant has not explained with sufficient specificity how the Examiner’s statement represents a new theory. The Appellant is directed to the Final Office Action, page 5, where, in discussing the claim 1 relative humidity limitation, the Examiner quotes Zyzak paragraph 41: “As known in the art, pH and temperature are factors Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 8 that affect enzymatic activity. One skilled in the art should readily be able to determine optimal conditions of these and other parameters (e.g. water content)” (emphasis added). See also Final 8, quoted supra pp. 4–5. The Appellant also argues that the rejection should have been designated as a new ground because the Examiner cited two dictionary definitions for the first time in the Answer. Reply Br. 3. This argument is not persuasive because the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (“MPEP”) expressly excludes dictionary definitions from the type of newly relied-on evidence requiring designation of a rejection as a new ground. MPEP § 1207.03, ¶ III (9th ed. rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“If Evidence (such as a new prior art reference, but not including a newly relied upon dictionary definition) is applied or cited for the first time in an examiner’s answer, then 37 [C.F.R. §] 41.39(a)(2) requires that the rejection be designated as a new ground of rejection.” (emphasis added)). In any event, given the Appellant’s admission that “‘relative humidity’ is dependent upon and related to temperature” (Reply Br. 3), we do not rely upon the dictionary definitions cited in the Answer. We now turn to the Appellant’s argument that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that adjusting the relative humidity to achieve sufficient asparaginase activity would have been a matter of routine optimization. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 5–6. “A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Zyzak discloses that “the effective amount of enzyme required to achieve the desired level of acrylamide reduction in the finished food product will depend upon the Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 9 activity of the particular enzyme product used.” Zyzak ¶ 35; see Final 4. Zyzak discloses that pH and temperature affect enzymatic activity. Zyzak ¶ 41; see Final 5. Zyzak discloses that the ordinary artisan should readily be able to determine optimal conditions for pH and temperature, as well as water content (i.e., humidity) (Zyzak ¶ 41; see Final 5). Given its own admission that “‘relative humidity’ is dependent upon and related to temperature” (Reply Br. 3), the Appellant has not convincingly explained why the above disclosure in Zyzak is insufficient to support the Examiner’s finding that asparaginase activity is affected by humidity and, therefore, is a result-effective variable. The Examiner found, and the Appellant does not dispute, that temperature and time are also result-effective variables. Final 7, 9; see generally Appeal Br. 3–7. “The mere fact that multiple result-effective variables were combined does not necessarily render their combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. [However, [e]vidence that the variables interacted in an unpredictable or unexpected way could render the combination nonobvious.” Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, (2007)). The Appellant cites Specification page 20, lines 10–24, and Figure 3 as evidence that “the enzymatic action set forth in claim 1 that occurs in a dynamic drying environment is unpredictable.” Reply Br. 6; see also Appeal Br. 6 (“[C]ontrary to the applied references, the present [S]pecification [(Spec. 20:10–24; Fig. 3)] documents the effect that varying the temperature and humidity level in the dryer has on the residual acrylamide amount.”). More specifically, the Appellant argues that Specification page 20, lines 10– 24, and Figure 3 “show the variability of residual acrylamide levels as Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 10 temperature and humidity are independently controlled in the dryer.” Reply Br. 5. The Appellant, however, does not explain, nor is it apparent to us, how the relied-upon Specification disclosure and Figure 3 evidence that temperature and humidity “interacted in an unpredictable or unexpected way” (Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298) that would render the claims nonobvious. See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he burden of showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them.”). We add that the Specification provides no indication of criticality or a new and unexpected result in the claimed drying temperature and humidity ranges. See, e.g., Spec. 3:25–26 (“The root vegetable product is optionally dried at a temperature between 30°C–65°C, optionally, 30°C–50°C at a relative humidity between 20%–80%.” (emphasis added)). The Appellant presents arguments in support of claim 1 only. See generally Appeal Br. 3–6. For the reasons stated above, in the Final Office Action, and in the Answer, we are not convinced of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20–23, 28–39, and 42–44. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 30–39, 42–44 103(a) Zyzak, Lynglev 1–3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 30–39, 42–44 14, 23, 29 103(a) Zyzak, Lynglev, Plank 14, 23, 29 21 103(a) Zyzak, Lynglev, Lindsay 21 Appeal 2019-005021 Application 12/294,004 11 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome: 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20–23, 28–39, 42–44 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation