SHIN, Kwan Woo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

15131485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2020)

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.
15/131,485 04/18/2016 Kwan Woo SHIN 6680L-000081-US 9620
28997 7590 01/31/2020
Harness Dickey (St. Louis)
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
bkamer@hdp.com
stldocket@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte KWAN WOO SHIN, KEEL YONG LEE,
TAE KYU AHN, and GI YOONG TAE
__________

Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,4851
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
liposome, which have been rejected as containing new matter, being
anticipated and/or being obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The extracellular matrix, which is “composed of proteoglycans, such
as heparan sulfate, chondroitin sulfate, and keratin sulfate, nonproteoglycan

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sogang
University Research Foundation. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

2
polysaccharides such as hyaluronic acid, fibers such as collagen and elastin,
fibronectin, and laminin,” “is mainly in charge of the structural support of
animals.” (Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4.)
A liposome is a spherical vesicle having at least one lipid bilayer, is
biocompatible, and is widely used as a drug delivery system. (Id. ¶ 5.)
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a liposome that is capable of promoting
cell attachment and growth by delivering the extracellular matrix to cells.”
(Id. ¶ 7.)

Claims 1–4 and 6–13 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A liposome for delivering an extracellular matrix, the
liposome comprising:
(a) a phospholipid membrane having an anionic lipid and
a neutral lipid, which are self-assembled; and
(b) an extracellular matrix bound to the anionic lipid
solely by ionic bonding to be disposed on a surface of the
anionic lipid;
wherein the extracellular matrix is at least one selected
from the group consisting of fibronectin, collagen, laminin, and
elastin.

(Appeal Br. 26.)

Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
John D. Rossi et al., Binding of Fibronectin to Phospholipid Vesicles, 258
(5) J. Biological Chem, 3327-3331 (1983)
Weiner US 5,366,958 Nov. 22, 1994
Rogers US 2014/0234217 A1 Aug. 21, 2014
Siepis US 2015/0216803 A1 Aug. 6, 2015
Xiao Zheng Shu et al., Disulfide-crosslinked hyaluronan-gelatin hydrogel
films: a covalent mimic of the extracellular matrix for in vitro cell growth,
24 Biomaterials, 3825-3834 (2003).

The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on
review:
Claims 1–4 and 6–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as reciting new matter
not supported by the original written description.
Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Rossi.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Weiner.
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Weiner, Rogers, and Siepis.
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Rossi, Rogers, and Siepis.

2 The Examiner’s rejection also refers to claim 12. However, the Examiner
does not address the limitations of claim 12 in this rejection and does
separately reject this method claim as being obvious over Rossi and Shu.
Thus, we understand the Examiner’s inclusion of claim 12 under this ground
to have been an inadvertent error.
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

4
Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rossi or Weiner
and Shu.3

DISCUSSION
New Matter
The Examiner explains that claim 1 recites that the ECM is “selected
from the group consisting of fibronectin, collagen, laminin, and elastin” and
that the ECM is bound to the anionic lipid of the phospholipid membrane
“‘solely’ by ionic bonding to be disposed on a surface of the anionic lipid.”
(Ans. 3; Final 2.) According to the Examiner, the Specification as originally
filed does not include the term “solely” and while the Specification at page
13, paragraph 76 does state that “‘synthetic liposome contains DOPS (an
anionic lipid) and thus has anionic charge, and induces ionic bonding with
collagen or fibronectin using the anionic charge’”, the “[S]pecification
nowhere indicates that laminin and elastin also bind [] to DOPS by ionic
bonding.” (Ans. 7.)
Appellant explains that “the [S]pecification discusses only a single
type of binding—ionic bonding—between the protein and the anionic lipid
(Specification pg. 6, para. [0029]; pg. 13, para. [0076]).” (Reply Br. 3.)

3 The Examiner’s rejection refers also to a published US application to
Marriott. However, claim 12 depends from claim 1, and the rejection of
claim 1 as being anticipated by Marriott was withdrawn by the Examiner in
the Answer in light of an amendment to the claim. (Ans. 2.) The Examiner
did not rely on Shu to address any limitations of claim 1, but rather to
address the cell growth limitation of claim 12. In light of the foregoing, we
understand the Examiner’s reference to Marriott in this rejection to have
been an inadvertent error.
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

5
Furthermore, regarding whether laminin or elastin can bind to an anionic
lipid via ionic bonding, Appellant explains that “it was known that each of
the four recited proteins can be given a positive charge, or expose a
positively charged region, by lowering the pH.” (Id.) In light of the
foregoing, argues Appellant, “it is reasonable to conclude that Applicant was
in possession of the invention comprising the feature ‘solely by ionic
bonding’” despite the lack of ipsis verbis support. (Id.)
We agree with Appellant that the Specification reasonably conveys
that the inventor possessed the subject matter of claim 1.
A description adequate to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’ In
other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of
the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject
matter as of the filing date.
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (citation omitted, alteration in original). Paragraph 29 of the
Specification clearly identifies the ECM being bound to the liposome “by
ionic bonding with the anionic lipid” of the phospholipid membrane and
Paragraph 30 of the Specification clearly identifies each of “fibronectin,
collagen, laminin, and elastin” as components from which the ECM is
selected. We find this sufficient description of the claim requirement that
the bonding to the anionic lipid of the liposome is solely by ionic bonding.4

4 The Examiner’s “questioning” whether “laminin and elastin also bind [] to
DOPS [known in the art as a negatively charged phospholipid] by ionic
bonding [like collagen and fibronectin] or by hydrogen bonds, dipole-dipole
interactions or by other bonding” (Ans. 7) seems to us to be a concern of
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

6
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as reciting new matter.
II
Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Rossi discloses “small unilamellar sonicated
vesicles containing DPPC and DPPA and fibronectin bound to the
liposomes.” (Final 9; Ans. 8.) The Examiner notes that “irrespective of
Rossi’s interpretation of the nature of bonding” as possibly having “some
hydrophobic character” in light of the observation that “the fibronectin-
liposome binding is not affected by high salt concentrations and does not
depend on head charge,” that the liposomes of Rossi are the same anionic
liposomes claimed and fibronectin is bound to it. (Id.) In light of the
foregoing, the Examiner indicates that the Appellant must show
experimentally that the interaction of Rossi is different than what is claimed,
i.e. solely through ionic interactions. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner’s prima facie finding of anticipation.
Appellant’s claim 1 is a composition that has 3 required elements: an anionic
lipid and a neutral lipid, which together form the phospholipid membrane of
the liposome, and an extracellular matrix that is disposed on a surface of the
anionic lipid, where the extracellular matrix is at least one of fibronectin,
collagen, laminin, or elastin. Rossi teaches combining together DPPC and
dipalmitoyl phosphatidic acid (DPPA) in a 4:1 (mol/mol) mixture to make a
phospholipid vesicle to which fibronectin is then added. (Rossi 3327–28

whether this aspect of the invention is enabled. However, that is not a
rejection on review before us.
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

7
(Experimental Procedures).) DPPC is indicated in Appellant’s Specification
to be a neutral lipid (Spec. ¶ 21) and DPPA is indicated in Appellant’s
Specification to be an anionic lipid (Spec. ¶ 15). Thus, Rossi teaches all the
components required by Appellant’s claim. Moreover, Rossi teaches that
the fibronectin is bound to the liposome. (Rossi at 3228 (“It was found that
fibronectin bound to all of these vesicle types,” i.e., vesicles containing
lipids with either negative, neutral, or positive surface head groups.) In light
of the fact that Rossi’s composition includes all of the requisite ingredients
required by Appellant’s claim, we conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation and it was appropriate for the
Examiner to require Appellant to prove that the composition does not
necessarily or inherently possess the binding characteristic between the
fibronectin and anionic lipid that is claimed. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical . . . the PTO can require an applicant to
prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product. . . . Whether the rejection is based on
‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35
U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively[.]”) Thus, we disagree with Appellant
that the Examiner “improperly attempt[ed] to shift the burden onto
Appellant” (Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 4.)
Rather than present experimental evidence to prove the fibronectin of
Rossi was not bound solely by ionic bonding to the anionic lipid, Appellant
argued that Rossi itself concluded “that the interaction is ‘not . . . merely
electrostatic in nature.’” (Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 4.) We disagree
that Rossi arrived at such a categorical conclusion or that the Examiner
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

8
ignored a “clear[] report[]” by Rossi “that the fibronectin does not bind to
the liposomes ‘solely by ionic binding’” (Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br.
4). Rossi states only “that the interaction [of fibronectin to the lipid vesicle]
may not be merely electrostatic in nature but might also have some
hydrophobic character.” (Rossi 3329 (emphasis added).) According to
Rossi, this possibility is because “[e]xtrinsic proteins which bind only by
electrostatic interactions are generally dissociated under either very high or
low ionic strength conditions” but “identical results were obtained for
vesicles in the presence and absence of high salt” and there was a lack of
selectivity for head group charge. (Id. at 3328–29 (emphasis added).)
Rossi’s hypothesis regarding the nature of the binding of fibronectin
to the liposome is not proof that binding thereto is not solely electrostatic,
nor is it proof that binding with the anionic lipid of the liposome is “solely
by ionic bonding.” Indeed, Rossi’s hypothesis regarding binding to the
liposome generally is itself premised on a generalization, i.e., Rossi accepts
that it is not the case that all extrinsic proteins which bind by electrostatic
interactions will necessarily dissociate under either very high or low ionic
strength conditions. In light of the foregoing, we do not find that the
Appellant has overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation of
claim 1.
Claim 13 is “[a] method for preparing a liposome for delivering an
extracellular matrix of claim 1.” Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 fails for the same reason it argued the Examiner’s
rejection failed as to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 16.) As just discussed, we
disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner did not establish
anticipation of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

9
Claims 2–4, 7, 9, and 11 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Rossi.

Non-Obviousness over Weiner alone or in combination
The Examiner finds that Weiner teaches liposomal compositions
containing fibronectin where the fibronectin is covalently or non-covalently
linked to the surface of the liposome. (Final 11.) The Examiner further
finds that Weiner teaches a number of lipids that can be combined to make
the liposomes including “DSPC, DPPC, cholesterol, phosphatidylserine,
phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidic acid.” (Id.) According to the
Examiner:
Although Weiner specifically teach through examples
fibronectin connected to negatively charged liposomes, since
liposomes are known to be formed using any phospholipid or
mixture of phospholipids, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use liposomes containing a mixture of
phospholipids including phosphatidic acid or
phosphatidylserine and attach fibronectin non-covalently to the
surface from the teachings of Weiner. One of ordinary skill in
the art would expect fibronectin to bind to a negatively charged
liposome containing either phosphatidic acid since on col. 2,
lines 36-38 Weiner states that fibronectin binds to negatively
charged hyaluronic acid.
(Id.)
We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. As
Appellant notes (Appeal Br. 20), Weiner is concerned with covalent
conjugation of a liposome to fibronectin. The only mention of fibronectin
non-covalently bound to phospholipid is in a statement referencing a
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

10
suggestion in prior art studies “as a possible means of targeting liposomes to
particular body sites rich in collagen.” (Weiner 2:56–59.) Nowhere does
Weiner suggest making noncovalently bound fibronectin liposome
compositions. Rather, Weiner explains that its invention is to “new and
substantially improved compositions . . . for enhancing localized retention of
administered bioactive agents . . . . When fibronectin is covalently linked to
a bioactive agent or to its carrier, the affinity of the resulting conjugate for
appropriate sites in vivo is greatly increased.” (Weiner 3:49–59 (emphasis
added).) Weiner states:
The present invention involves methods and formulations of
conjugates of fibronectin (i.e., fibronectin covalently bound to
amine-containing compounds such as lipids, . . . acidic
phospholipids, derivatized phospholipids or liposomes) which
have numerous advantages for use as drug delivery or carrier
systems. Fibronectin covalently bound to bioactive agents may
be administered directly or incorporated into a liposome
preparation which is then administered in vivo. Alternatively,
if fibronectin is bound to a lipid, this conjugate may be
incorporated into the lipid bilayer of liposomes containing an
entrapped bioactive agent.
(Id. at 4:27–40 (emphasis added).) While we agree with the Examiner that
Weiner describes acidic phospholipids including phosphatidic acid or
phosphatidylserine may be used “[a]ccording to another embodiment of the
present invention” (see, e.g., id. 6:47–51), it does so in the context of “the
present invention,” which is a covalently conjugated fibronectin
phospholipid composition. Thus, Weiner is not “suggestive of the non-
covalent binding of fibronectin to the liposomes,” just because it mentions in
passing other “studies [that] have suggested utilization of fibronectin non-
covalently bound to lipid vesicles as a possible means of targeting liposomes
to particular body sites rich in collagen” (id. at 2:56–59). Consequently, we
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

11
do not agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious in light of Weiner’s teachings to “use liposomes
containing a mixture of phospholipids including phosphatidic acid or
phosphatidylserine and attach fibronectin non-covalently to the surface” of a
liposome (Final 11).
The Examiner’s further rejections of claims for obviousness involving
Weiner, Rogers, and Siepis, and Weiner in combination with Shu rely on
Weiner as teaching “the [claimed] attachment of fibronectin” to liposomes
(see, e.g., Ans. 10). That is, the Examiner only relies on Rogers and Siepis
for teaching specific phospholipids that are known to be used in making
liposomes. (See, e.g., id.; Final 12.) The Examiner only relies on Shu for
the known use of fibronectin and collagen, when coated onto hyaluronan, as
enhancing cell attachment and that disulfide-crosslinked hyaluronan-gelatin
(matrix protein) mimics the extracellular matrix for in vitro cell growth.
(See e.g., Ans. 6.) For the reasons just discussed, we do not agree with the
Examiner that Weiner teaches or suggests the non-covalent attachment of
fibronectin to a liposome, much less to the anionic lipid of a phospholipid
membrane of a liposome.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and
11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiner and claims 1–4,
6–11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiner, Rogers,
and Siepis, and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiner
and Shu.

Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

12
Non-Obviousness over Rossi, Rogers, and Siepis
The Examiner finds that Rossi, in addition to teaching the
combination of DPPC and DPPA, also teaches “in the experimental
section . . . the use of dipalmitoylethanoloamine.” (Final 12; Ans. 5.)
According to the Examiner:
one of ordinary skill in the would be motivated to use specific
phospholipids such as DOPC, POPE, DOPS and mixtures with
a reasonable expectation of success since specific phospholipids
or mixture of specific phospholipids could be used for the
formation of liposomes as also evident from the reference of
Rogers (Abstract and 0043) and Siepis (Abstract and 0091-
0092).
(Final 12–13.) Only claims 6, 8, and 10 concern liposomes that are required
to include DOPC, POPE, and DOPS.
We conclude that the Examiner has not presented a prima face case of
obviousness with respect to claims 6, 8, and 10, the claims that were not also
rejected as being anticipated by Rossi.
Appellant argues only that Rogers and Siepis do not compensate for
the alleged deficiency of Rossi not teaching the ECM bound to the anionic
lipid “solely by ionic bonding” regarding claim 1. (Appeal Br. 23–24.) As
noted above in the anticipation discussion, we agree that the Examiner has
set out a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to claim 1 and Rossi,
and thus we do not find Appellant’s argument with respect to whether or not
claim 1 is obvious from Rossi, Rogers, and Siepis to be persuasive. See
generally In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (the Board may rely
on less than all of the references relied upon by the Examiner). “It is well
settled that ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” In re McDaniel,
293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck &
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

13
Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Thus, as to claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11,
and 13, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as not being
patentable over Rossi.
Nevertheless, as to claims 6, 8, and 10, “[a]n examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the
applicant to rebut that case.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066
(Fed. Cir. 2011). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Examiner’s obviousness position as to claims 6, 8, and 10,
appears to be that because Rogers and Siepis teach DOPC, POPE (a
phosphoethanolamine derivative), and DOPS are phospholipids that can be
used in the preparation of a lipid assembly (Rogers ¶ 43 (identifying DOPC,
POPE, and DOPS as non-cationic lipids), Siepis ¶¶ 91–92 (identifying POPE
and DOPC as neutral lipids and DOPS as an anionic lipid) and Rossi
identifies the use of DPPC, DPPA, and an ethanolamine derivative
(dipalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine) as phospholipids for making a
phospholipid vesicle, picking DOPC, POPE, and DOPS as compared to the
combinations Rossi used would have been obvious. We do not find the
Examiner’s conclusory position to satisfy the necessary articulated reasoning
to support obviousness.
Rossi teaches the use of an ethanolamine derivative having a positive
head group charge (Rossi 3328) in combination with DPPC, which
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

14
Appellant’s Specification teaches is a neural lipid (Spec. ¶ 21) or DPPA
having a negative head group charge (Rossi 3328) in combination with the
neutral lipid DPPC. Moreover, Rossi teaches the inclusion of the
ethanoloamine derivative in its two component lipid membrane because it
had positively charged head groups and in order to examine whether the
change in surface charge changed the interaction of fibronectin with the lipid
vesicle. (Id.) Rossi does not teach a combination of three lipids to make a
single lipid vesicle.
While Rogers and Siepis teach a number of different lipids for use in a
lipid assembly, the Examiner has not provided any rationale supporting a
reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the anionic
lipid DOPS for DPPA in Rossi, substituted the neutral lipid DOPC for
DPPC in Rossi, and then also included an ethanolamine derivative that does
not have a positive head group together with those other two phospholipids.
That one could have combined them is not a sufficient reason to support
doing so in light of Rossi’s clear teaching of two component vesicles.
Thus, for the foregoing reason, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 6, 8, and 10 as being obvious over Rossi, Rogers, and Siepis.

Non-Obviousness of Claim 12 over Rossi and Shu
Claim 12 is a method for promoting cell growth, which method only
requires bringing the liposome of claim 1 into contact with animal cells. We
explained above, the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Shu,
when discussing the obviousness rejections by the Examiner of the claims
over Weiner. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to have used the DPPC-DPPA liposome
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

15
vesicle of Rossi with fibronectin bound thereto “for attachment of cells and
subsequent growth of cells since it is known in the art that extracellular
matrix material is involved in the growth of cells and Shu teaches
extracellular matrix protein and hyaluronan combination enables it to attach
to cells for their growth.” (Final at 13–14.)
We conclude that the Examiner has not presented a prima face case of
obviousness with respect to claim 12.
Appellant argues only that Shu does not compensate for the alleged
deficiency of Rossi not teaching the ECM bound to the anionic lipid “solely
by ionic bonding” regarding claim 1. (Appeal Br. 24–25.) As noted above
in the anticipation discussion, we agree that the Examiner has set out a prima
facie case of anticipation with respect to claim 1 and Rossi, and thus we do
not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive.
Nevertheless, similar to the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 8, and
10, just discussed, the Examiner has not articulated a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used the lipid vesicle with fibronectin
bound thereto in place of the fibronectin that Shu teaches when coated onto
hyaluronan results in enhanced cell attachment and mimics the extracellular
matrix for in vitro cell growth (Ans. 10–11). That one could make the
substitution because it was a known fibronectin composition is not a
sufficient reason to support doing so particularly where Rossi does not
provide any teaching regarding properties that would support using its
fibronectin lipid vesicle construction in place of a simple fibronectin or the
oligopeptides containing fibronectin-derived RGD peptide to attach to
hyaluronan (Shu 3826) and the Examiner does not point to any teaching in
Shu regarding sought after properties.
Appeal 2019-003333
Application 15/131,485

16
Thus, for the foregoing reason, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12 as being obvious over Rossi and Shu.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–12 112(a) 1–4, 6–12
1–4, 7, 9,
11, 13
102(a)(1) Rossi 1–4, 7, 9,
11, 13

1, 3, 4, 7, 9,
11–13
103 Weiner 1, 3, 4, 7, 9,
11–13
1–4, 6–11,
13
103 Weiner, Rogers,
Siepis
1–4, 6–11,
13
1–4, 6–11,
13
103 Rossi, Rogers,
Siepis
1–4, 7, 9,
11, 13
6, 8, 10
12 103 Weiner, Shu 12
12 103 Rossi, Shu 12
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7, 9,
11, 13
6, 8, 10, 12

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-IN-PART