Ex Parte Okada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2019

13983166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/983, 166 09/11/2013
513 7590 03/12/2019
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yasuaki Okada
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2013-1142A 2973
EXAMINER
ALAWADI, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUAKI OKADA, KATSUHIRO OKADA,
MASATO NISHIMURA, YUJI KA WAHARADA, HIROO MAEDA,
KAZUMITSU YAMAMOTO, and MASA Y ASU TANAKA 1
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
Technology Center 1600
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, TA WEN CHANG, and
RYAN H. FLAX, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLAX, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as "NITTO DENKO
CORPORATION." Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
This is a decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed
to a transdermal drug-delivery patch. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 21
are on appeal as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Independent claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A patch preparation comprising a support and an adhesive
layer formed on one surface of the support, wherein the adhesive
layer comprises
(i) 2-(4-ethyl-l-piperazinyl)-4-(4-fluorophenyl)-
5, 6, 7 ,8,9, 10-hexahydrocycloocta[b ]pyridine or a physiologically
acceptable acid addition salt thereof,
(ii) an acrylic polymer,
(iii) lactic acid,
(iv) sesame oil,
(v)
(v-1) not more than one additive selected from the
group consisting of 2-mercapto benzimidazole, 2, 6-di-tert-
butyl-4-methylpheno l and propyl gallate and
(v-2) a filler which 1s magnesmm
aluminometasilicate, and
( vi) an organic liquid component that is a fatty acid ester
formed from a fatty acid having a carbon number of 8 to 18 and
a monohydric alcohol having a carbon number of 1 to 18,
wherein the adhesive layer is a non-aqueous adhesive
layer, and the content of the lactic acid in 100 wt% of the
adhesive layer is 1-10 wt%, the content of the additive (v-1) in
100 wt% of the adhesive layer is 0.3 - 10 wt% and the content
2
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
ratio of the sesame oil and the organic liquid component is 1: 1-
1 :6 by weight ratio.
Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
The following rejections are appealed:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) over Maeda, 2 Sharma, 3 Ishii, 4 and Ameyama, 5 as evidenced by
Fuji, 6 Ton-That,7 and Okada. 8 Final Action 3.
Claim 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Maeda,
Sharma, Ishii, Ameyama, and Funakoshi, 9 as evidenced by Fuji, Ton-That,
and Okada. Id. at 10.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 21 stand rejected for obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1-8 of Maeda' 121, 10 in view of Sharma,
Ishii, and Funakoshi, as evidenced by Fuji, Ton-That. Id. at 12.
DISCUSSION
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting aprimafacie case ofunpatentability. If
that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shifts to the applicant." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2 US 2009/0169605 Al (published July 2, 2009) ("Maeda").
3 US 5,229,130 (issued July 20, 1993) ("Sharma").
4 US 2007 /0219286 Al (published Sept. 20, 2007) ("Ishii").
5 US 2008/0299183 Al (published Dec. 4, 2008) ("Ameyama").
6 Fuji Chemical Industry Co., LTD., The Specialty Excipient Neusilin®
(2009) ("Fuji").
7 US 2006/0009588 Al (published Jan. 12, 2006) ("Ton-That").
8 US 2010/0318042 Al (published Dec. 16, 2010) ("Okada").
9 US 2010/0068248 Al (published Mar. 18, 2010) ("Funakoshi").
10 US 8,354,121 B2 (issued Jan. 15, 2013) ("Maeda '121 ").
3
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
Arguments made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief (no Reply Brief was
submitted) have been considered in this Decision; arguments not so-
presented in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015);
see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) ("Any bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that
are not raised in the principal brief are waived.").
As applicable to the rejections on appeal and Appellants' arguments
there-over, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). Put
another way, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior
art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known
in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result."
Id. "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under§ 103." Id. at 419. "[T]he
question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest
the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination, not
whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the
combination is the most desirable combination available." In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
"Patents [ and published applications] are part of the literature of the
art and are relevant for all they contain." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591
(Fed. Cir. 1991 ). That the prior art "discloses a multitude of effective
4
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This
is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical
purpose taught by the prior art." Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "The criterion [for determining
obviousness] ... is not the number of references, but what they would have
meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (reliance on thirteen references
to support obviousness rejection does not of itself weigh against conclusion
of obviousness).
Appellants argue the two obviousness rejections together, addressing
only independent claim 1 specifically. Therefore, we address the
obviousness rejections and Appellants' arguments similarly.
The Examiner determined the claims would have been obvious over
the prior art combination of Maeda, Sharma, Ishii, and Ameyama, and also
looking to Fuji, Ton-That, and Okada, and in the case of claim 21 also
adding Funakoshi. Final Action 3-11, 17-20 and Answer 2-13 ( collectively
citing Maeda abstract, ,r,r 6, 11-13, 24--29, 32-34, 36, 37, 49-52, Example 1,
claims 1, 3-7; citing Sharma in its entirety, but specifically at abstract, 2:1-
3:68, 4:19, 5:40-50, claim 1; citing Ishii abstract, ,r,r 17, 39, 58, 73, 74;
citing Ameyama ,r,r 11, 13, 24, 25, 55; citing Fuji generally; citing Ton-That
generally; citing Okada ,r,r 48, 49; citing Funakoshi generally); see also
Maeda ,r,r 2, 35; Ishii ,r,r 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 19, 76, 82, 88, 94, 99, 100;
Ameyama abstract, ,r,r 37, 38; Ton-That ,r,r 7, 12, 13; Okada ,r,r 44, 45; Fuji
2; Funakoshi abstract, ,r,r 29, 31, 32, 37 (each disclosing relevant materials,
components, and additives for transdermal patches).
5
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
The Examiner determined that Maeda disclosed a transdermal patch
having an adhesive with the claimed drug (Compound A) ( claimed
component i), with the claimed acrylic polymer ( claimed component ii),
with permeation enhancers including the claimed lactic acid ( claimed
component iii), as well as olive and soybean oils, and with other fillers or
additives such as BHT. Final Action 3-11, 17-20 and Answer 2-13. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use sesame oil ( as
in claimed component iv), rather than Maeda's soybean or olive oils, as an
additional permeation enhancer with Maeda' s lactic acid (in the claimed
amounts), as suggested by Sharma, because the list of permeation enhancers
described in both publications significantly overlap, as does, in a general
fashion, the drug delivered. Id. The Examiner further determined that it
would have been obvious to use magnesium aluminometasilicate ( claimed
component v-2), also called Neusilin, as Maeda's filler component, as
suggested by Ishii, Fuji, and Ton-That. Id.
Further, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
use 2-ethylhexylacrylate/acrylic acid/N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone copolymer, as
suggested by Ameyama, for Maeda's acrylic polymer. Id. Further, the
Examiner determined that for Maeda' s disclosed BHT component ( claimed
component v-1), it would have been obvious to use 0.3-10 wt%, as taught
by Okada. Id. Regarding claim 21, the Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to use a crosslinking agent, such as the isocyanate
compound diisocyanate, as taught by Funakoshi, in a patch as disclosed by
Maeda. Id.
6
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
The cited prior art references are directed to transdermal patches and
their components. The Examiner's position is that the modifications made
to Maeda' s transdermal patch, as noted above, would have been obvious
because the substituted or added components were disclosed in the cited
prior art as, essentially, known and conventional components of transdermal
patches and/or equivalent to components of Maeda's patch. We discern no
error in the Examiner's determinations. The combined patch components
would have been useful for their known properties and their functions as
taught in the references. We address Appellants' arguments below.
Appellants argue Maeda fails to disclose sesame oil and the amounts
thereof, as claimed, and also fails to disclose magnesium
aluminometasilicate and the amounts thereof, as claimed. Br. 5---6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's determination that substituting sesame
oil, as disclosed by Sharma, for the soybean or olive oils disclosed by
Maeda, for a penetration enhancer would not have been an obvious, simple
substitution. Id. at 6-7. Although acknowledging that Maeda discloses a list
of penetration enhancers, including olive oil, soybean oil, and lactic acid,
useful for pairing with the antipsychotic drug of Composition A ( as claimed)
in an amount ranging from about 0.01-about 50% by weight, and
acknowledging that Sharma discloses a list of permeation enhancers,
including vegetable oils such as sesame oil, olive oil, and soybean oil, useful
for pairing with a variety of pharmaceuticals, including antipsychotics,
Appellants argue that the evidence shows that the skilled artisan would not
have had a reasonable expectation of successfully replacing Maeda's olive
or soybean oils with Sharma's sesame oil as a penetration enhancer for
7
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
Composition A because "penetration enhancer potencies appear to be drug
specific" according to Williams. 11 Br. 6-9.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. We note that the lists of
permeation enhancers in Maeda and Sharma overlap, where Maeda lists
some vegetable-based oils ( olive oil and soybean oil) as permeation
enhancers and Sharma focuses on vegetable-based oils as permeation
enhancers, like Maeda listing olive oil and soybean oil, but also listing
sesame oil, as options. See Maeda ,r,r 12, 32; Sharma 2:30-3:3. Also,
Maeda's disclosed drug, the penetration of which is to be enhanced, is
Compound A, which is an antipsychotic; Sharma lists antipsychotics as a
type of drug that's permeation can be enhanced by sesame oil. See Maeda
,r 2; Sharma 4:6-30. Maeda discloses that it's preferred permeation
enhancer is lactic acid (0.01-10 wt%) and that its patch can have more than
one permeation enhancer. See, e.g., Maeda ,r 12, claim 5.
The thrust of Appellants' argument is that replacing Maeda's olive or
soybean oils with Sharma's sesame oil would not have been expected to
work because Williams indicated that the performance of penetration
enhancers is drug-specific. While Williams does make this statement, as
quoted by Appellants, the claim does not recite a specific level of
penetration enhancing performance and a more complete quote of the
relevant portion of Williams is:
It is difficult to select rationally a penetration enhancer for a
given permeant. Penetration enhancer potencies appear to be
drug specific, or at best may be predictive for a series of
11 Adrian C. Williams & Brian W. Barry, Penetration Enhancers, 56 Aov.
DRUG DELIVERY REV. 603-18, 615 (2004) ("Williams").
8
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
permeants with similar physico-chemical properties ( such as
similar partition coefficients, molecular weights and
solubilities). Some broad generic trends are apparent, such as the
use of hydrocarbon monoterpenes for lipophilic permeants, but
the level of enhancement expected for these agents is
unpredictable.
Williams 615. Thus, Williams is not as absolute as to the unpredictability of
permeation enhancer performance or selection as suggested by Appellants.
Williams teaches that similar permeation enhancing materials can be
predicted to behave similarly and identifies the existence of broad trends,
such as the fact that lipophilic permeants (like vegetable oils) would be
expected to similarly enhance permeation, even if the level of enhancement
could vary. In view of this statement, Appellants did not provide adequate
evidence that sesame oil would act differently than the other vegetable-based
oils on Sharma' s list. Thus, we are not persuaded the evidence supports
Appellants' arguments.
As for Appellants' argument that Maeda does not disclose magnesium
aluminometasilicate, the Examiner does not cite Maeda for such a teaching,
but determined that it would have been obvious to add Neusilin to Maeda's
patch based on the cited prior art combination (Neusilin was a common,
commercially available pharmaceutical excipient for over 50 years, with a
wide variety of uses, as taught by Fuji). "Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must
be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with
the prior art as a whole." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
9
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
1986). Maeda was not cited for teaching this component and the argument
that it does not do so is not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that Ishii either teaches away from its
combination with Maeda or, if not so explicit, would not have provided the
skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success in using Maeda's
disclosed lactic acid ( 1-10 wt%) and Ishii' s disclosed magnesium
aluminometasilicate (Neusilin), because Ishii warns that exceeding 5,000
ppm B-hydroxypropionic acid (salt) (0.5 wt% per solid content of the
polymer), detrimentally affects the crosslinking in the adhesive and results in
either hardness instability or drug-absorption instability. Br. 10-12 (citing
Ishii ,r,r 7, 11, 13, 19). Appellants' position is that lactic acid is a type of
oxycarboxylic acid and B-hydroxypropionic acid (salt) is a type of
oxycarboxylic acid and, therefore, Ishii's warnings with respect to the latter
would also implicate the former; thus, the amounts of lactic acid taught by
Maeda would be too much for use with Ishii's Neusilin as Maeda's filler.
Id.
This argument is not persuasive. Ishii does not teach away from using
Neusilin as a filler in Maeda's patch. A "teaching away" requires a
reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed
solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here,
Ishii suggests that it may be desirable to limit an amount of
/J-hydroxypropionic acid (salt) to 5,000 ppm or less, but it teaches using
0.01-20% Neusilin, as well as also adding additional lactic acid as a pH
adjuster ( as well as adding other relevant components such as olive, sesame,
and soybean oils as permeation enhancers, and BHT as an antioxidant). Ishii
10
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
,r,r 73-74, 94, 99, 100. Ishii does not criticize or discredit combining lactic
acid and N eusilin, (particularly with the other components), or the use of
Neusilin as a filler, as claimed.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's obviousness rejections are
premised on improper hindsight, based on picking and choosing components
from the prior art references to reconstruct Appellants' claims. Br. 12. In
particular, Appellants argue that, without hindsight, selecting Sharma' s
sesame oil for Maeda's Compound A patch (as a substitute for Maeda's
olive or soybean oils, would not have been obvious. Id. at 12-14. Further,
Appellants argue that Maeda does not teach an amount of
dibutylhydroxytouline (2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol or "BHT") as an
stabilizer, and the Examiner improperly relies on Okada's teaching of BHT
as an antioxidant, which is insufficient because there is only a passing
reference to BHT in Okada and Okada's drug is methyl salicylate, not
Compound A. Id. at 15-16.
This argument is not persuasive.
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner
has relied upon only what is disclosed in the prior art, identifying motivation
to modify or combine as suggested by the prior art's teachings. The
appropriateness of combining Sharma's sesame oil with Maeda's permeation
enhancer mix is discussed above. As for BHT, Maeda discloses
11
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
incorporating it in a patch, and Okada teaches it is useful as an antioxidant in
patches; that the drugs being delivered in Maeda and Okada are not identical
is not determinative because both publications describe the component as
useful in a patch.
The Examiner's double patenting rejection is over the issued patent,
i.e., Maeda '121, of the published Maeda application, discussed above; this
publication and patent share the same specification and disclosure. Final
Action 12-13. Maeda' 121 's claims recite the subject matter discussed
above as disclosed by Maeda with respect to claim 1, that is, a patch ( called
a "tape" in the claims) including, inter alia, Compound A, an acrylic
polymer, lactic acid as a first permeation enhancer, and olive oil and/or
soybean oil as a second permeation enhancer. As the Examiner notes,
Maeda '121 's claims are written as "comprising" claims, meaning they must
include the recited elements, but can also include other obvious components
(it would have been obvious to include other components). Id. at 13. The
Examiner cited the other prior art, discussed above, as teaching and
suggesting such additional, obvious components of the claimed Maeda '121
patch, as discussed above (e.g., sesame oil (a known penetration enhancer)
as Maeda '121 's disclosed/ claimed second penetration enhancer, BHT ( a
known transdermal patch antioxidant additive) as Maeda '121 's stabilizer,
Neusilin (a known filler) as Maeda' 121 's filler material). Id. at 13-17.
Again, as with the obviousness rejection discussed above, we discern no
error in this rejection.
Regarding the double patenting rejection over Maeda '121, Appellants
argue the Examiner has improperly imported limitations into Maeda '121 's
12
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
claims when comparing them to the appealed claims. Br. 16. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner has relied on Maeda ' 121 's claims
inclusion of the "comprising" transition term to pull not-recited elements
disclosed in Maeda '121 's specification, such as fillers and stabilizing agents
as in the appealed claims, into the patent's claims. Id. at 16-17. Also,
Appellants argue that Maeda' 121 does not claim sesame oil, BHT, or
aluminometasilicate and the Examiner relies on Sharma, Ishii, and Okada, as
in the obviousness rejections, which suffer from the issues discussed above.
Id. at 17.
This argument is not persuasive. We do not conclude that the
Examiner is improperly importing limitations into Maeda '121 's claims to
meet the appealed claims' subject matter; instead, the Examiner has merely
identified that Maeda' 121 's claims are not restrictive of the claimed patch's
components and that it would have been obvious to add or substitute
conventionally used transdermal patch components as taught and suggested
in the other cited prior art. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner's
obviousness type double patenting rejection and rationale for the same
reasons we likewise found no error in the obviousness rejections, as
discussed above.
13
Appeal2018-000301
Application 13/983,166
SUMMARY
The obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are each affirmed.
The double patenting 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14