Ex Parte Pitaru et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2017

13143196 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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.
13/143,196 07/04/2011 Sandu Pitaru 51285 3540
67801 7590 05/09/2017
MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC.
P.O. BOX 16446
ARLINGTON, VA 22215
EXAMINER
TSAY, MARSHA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2017 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):
usptomail@ipatent.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDU PITARU and NAPHTALI S AVION1
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Technology Center 1600
Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, JOHN G. NEW, and RICHARD J. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
composition-of-matter comprising non-fibrillar fibrinogen. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
“Fibrin is an insoluble biopolymer formed by the polymerization of
fibrinogen. Fibrinogen is produced by the liver . . . [and] is composed of 3
polypeptides chains.” (Spec. 1,11. 21—24.)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ramot at Tel-Aviv
University Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
“Fibrinogen is a soluble, non-fibrillar protein, which is the native
precursor of fibrin.” (Id. at 11,11. 14—15.)
Claims on Appeal
Claims 88—103, 109, 110, 134—148, 154, and 155 are on appeal.2
(Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 51—54.) Claims 88, 93, and 109 are
illustrative and read as follows:
88. A composition-of-matter comprising non-fibrillar fibrinogen being
crosslinked by at least one reducing sugar, said reducing sugar crosslinking
said fibrinogen by binding to at least two sites on said fibrinogen, said at
least two sites being on different fibrinogen molecules and/or on a single
fibrinogen molecule, the crosslinked non-fibrillar fibrinogen being water-
insoluble.
93. A process for producing a composition-of-matter comprising non-
fibrillar fibrinogen being crosslinked by at least one reducing sugar, the
crosslinked non-fibrillar fibrinogen being water-insoluble, the process
comprising reacting non-fibrillar fibrinogen with said at least one reducing
sugar in a crosslinking solution which comprises said reducing sugar and a
polar organic solvent.
109. A kit for generating the composition-of-matter of claim 88, the kit
comprising
(i) non-fibrillar fibrinogen; and
(ii) a reducing sugar.
Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 109, 110, 154, and 155 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to non-statutory subject matter.3 (Ans. 18—19.)
2 Claims 1—87 and 111—133 are cancelled, and claims 104—108 and 149—153
are withdrawn. (Final Act. 2, dated Dec. 8, 2014.)
3 This is a new ground of rejection that is addressed in the Reply Brief.
2
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
2. Claims 88—92, 98—101, 134—137, and 143—146 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Campbell I,4 as evidenced by
Mosesson5 and Nevo.6 {Id. at 3—7.)
3. Claims 93-97, 102, 103, 109, 110, 138-142, 147, 148, 154, and 155
stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Campbell I
and Nevo, as evidenced by Mosesson. {Id. at 7—10.)
4. Claims 88—92, 98—101, 134—137, and 143—146 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Campbell II,7 as evidenced by
Mosesson and Nevo. {Id. at 11—14.)
5. Claims 93-97, 102, 103, 109, 110, 138-142, 147, 148, 154, and 155
stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Campbell
II and Nevo, as evidenced by Mosesson. {Id. at 15—18.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own, including with regard
to the scope and content of, and motivation to combine, the prior art. The
following findings are included for emphasis and reference purposes.
FF 1. Campbell I teaches a biopolymer such as fibrin or fibrinogen
that may be cross-linked with a cross-linking agent such as ribose.
(Campbell I 5,1. 23-6,1. 11.)
4 Campbell et al., WO 2007/126411 A2, pub. Nov. 8, 2007 (“Campbell I”).
5 M. W. Mosesson, Fibrinogen and fibrin structure and functions, Journal
of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 3, 1894—1904 (2005) (“Mosesson”).
6 Nevo et al., US 2006/0110426 Al, pub. May 25, 2006 (“Nevo”).
7 Campbell et al., US 2010/0254900 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2010 (“Campbell II”).
3
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
FF 2. Campbell I teaches that ‘“[cjross-linking’ is the formation of a
covalent attachment between two entities.” (Id. at 28,1. 9.)
FF 3. The Examiner finds that Mosesson teaches that fibrinogen can
be cross-linked without conversion to fibrin, and that cross-linked fibrinogen
is insoluble in aqueous solution. (Ans. 3, citing Mosesson 1896—97.)
FF 4. The Examiner finds that “fibrinogen would inherently have the
property of being non-fibrillar as this would be a natural property of
fibrinogen.” (Ans. 26.)
FF 5. The Examiner finds that claims 88 and 98 are anticipated by
Campbell I. (Id. at 5.)
FF 6. The Examiner finds that
[a]t the time of the invention, it was known that fibrin,
fibrinogen, collagen, elastin, gelatin, albumin, polysaccharides
are all biopolymers that can be cross-linked and used in tissue
engineering . . . Nevo [] disclose[s] using ribose in a polar
organic solution to cross-link the biopolymers fibrin, collagen,
elastin, gelatin, albumin, polysaccharides .... Nevo []
disclose [s] that comparison with other cross-linking agents
showed ribose as the best cross-linking agent because the degree
of crosslinking can be controlled by the sugar concentration,
temperature, and length of reaction .... Therefore, Nevo []
disclose[s] that ribose cross-links essentially the same
biopolymers disclosed by Campbell I.
(Ans. 8, citing Nevo 3—8, 23, 40, and 126.)
FF 7. Nevo teaches the use of ribose in an ethanol solution “for
further cross-linking.” (Nevo 198.)
DISCUSSION
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3 42). We discern no error in the
Examiner’s rejections.
4
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Rejection No. 1
Issue
Whether a preponderance of evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Analysis
In analyzing patent eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
Supreme Court instructs us to “first determine whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If this threshold is met, we move
to a second step of the inquiry and “consider the elements of each claim both
individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)).
Appellants separately contest the rejections of claim 109 (which is
representative of claim 154) and claim 110 (which is representative of claim
155). (Reply Br. 12—15.) Claim 110 recites “[t]he kit of claim 109, further
comprising a polar organic solvent.” (Appeal Br. 52.)
Step 1
The Examiner found that the claimed fibrinogen and reducing sugar
“are naturally occurring compounds found in the body.” (Ans. 18.)
Appellants do not appear to dispute that finding. (See Reply Br. 13.)
Accordingly, we find that claims 109, 154 and claims 110, 155 are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept; namely, products of nature.
5
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Step 2
The Examiner found that the inclusion of the claimed fibrinogen and
reducing sugar in a kit does not change their characteristics, and that claims
109 and 154 “do not include any additional features that would add
significantly more to the products of nature exceptions; therefore, the claims
do not quality as eligible subject matter.” (Ans. 19.) Moreover, the
Examiner found that the inclusion of a polar organic solvent in the kit
(claims 110 and 155) “does not change the characteristics of the fibrinogen
or reducing sugar. Therefore, the claims add nothing significantly more to
the product of nature itself.” (Id. )
Appellants contest these findings. Appellants argue that “neither
fibrinogen nor reducing sugars are normally provided” in a kit. (Reply Br.
13.) Thus, according to Appellants, the claim would not preempt “others
wishing to ‘practice’ the natural existence of fibrinogen or reducing sugar,”
and “[t]he inclusion of both fibrinogen and a reducing sugar in a kit is not
well-understood, routine or conventional.” (Id. at 13—14.) Appellants repeat
essentially the same arguments with respect to the polar organic solvent,
adding that “the Examiner has also erred by assuming facts not in evidence”
in concluding that the use of a polar organic solvent to contain a protein is a
well-understood, routine or conventional activity.8 (Id. at 15.)
We find that the Examiner has the better position. As to the matter of
preemption, our reviewing court has held that “the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility,” and that “[wjhere a
8 According to Appellants, aqueous solvents “are far more routine and
conventional than polar organic solvents for containing proteins such as
fibrinogen.” (Reply Br. 15.)
6
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter
under the Mayo framework . . . preemption concerns are fully addressed and
made moot.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, we find that the inclusion of components
in a kit, or adding a solvent, “add nothing specific to the laws of nature other
than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously
engaged in by those in the field.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1299. In particular,
the question is not whether fibrinogen and a reducing sugar have previously
been included in a kit, with or without a polar solvent, but whether it was
routine, conventional or well-understood to include ingredients or reagents
(e.g., solvents) in a kit “by those in the field.” Id.', see also Ariosa, 788 F.3d
at 1377 (“Because the method steps were well-understood, conventional and
routine, the method of detecting paternally inherited cffDNA is not new and
useful.”). Here, the additional elements asserted by Appellants (kit format,
polar solvent) are insufficient to provide the inventive concept necessary to
render the claims patent eligible, or otherwise transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application. See Mayo,132 S. Ct. at 1297; see
also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1375—77
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie
case of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted or overcome that prima facie case. The rejection is
affirmed.
Conclusion
A preponderance of evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 109, 110, 154, and 155 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
7
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Rejection No. 2
Issue
Whether a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in
the alternative, obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Analysis
Claim 88
As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner that claim 88 is
reasonably interpreted as “a composition-of-matter comprising cross-linked
non-fibrillar fibrinogen, wherein the cross-linked non-fibrillar fibrinogen is
cross-linked by at least one reducing sugar (i.e. ribose).”9 (Ans. 3.)
Moreover, the Examiner also finds that claim 88 appears to be a product-by­
process claim, such that the determination of patentability is based on the
product itself. (Id.) See In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(citations omitted).
Appellants contest the Examiner’s anticipation finding by arguing that
the Examiner has engaged in “repeated examples of picking and choosing”
contrary to case law, and that the Examiner has failed to address each
limitation of the claim. (Appeal Br. 14—17; Reply Br. 9—10.) For the
reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Picking and choosing
The anticipation rejection is based on the selection of fibrinogen as
the biopolymer, from a finite number of biopolymers, and ribose as the
cross-linking agent, from a finite number of cross-linking agents. (Ans. 21.)
9 Appellants state that ribose is a common example of monosaccharides that
are also a reducing sugar. (Spec. 15,11. 3—5.)
8
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
This is an appropriate basis for finding anticipation under the case law. See,
e.g., Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USALLC, 683 F.3d 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claim at issue in Wrigley was directed to a chewing gum
composition that included WS—23 (a cooling agent) and menthol (a flavoring
agent). Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1359. The claim was held to be anticipated by
a prior art reference that disclosed a number of different combinations of
cooling and flavoring elements. Id. at 1361—62. In Kennametal, the court
held that “the question for the purposes of anticipation is ‘whether the
number of categories and components’ disclosed in [the prior art patent] is
so large that the combination of ruthenium and PVD coatings ‘would not be
immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Kennametal, 780
F.3d at 1382 (quoting Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361.)
Here, we find that the two categories (biopolymers and cross-linking
agents) in Campbell I, and the limited number of respective components in
each category, are not so large that the combination of fibrinogen cross-
linked with ribose (a reducing sugar) would not be immediately apparent to
one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Campbell I 5,1. 23—6,1. 14.)
Claim limitations
Appellants contend that “the Examiner has ignored the nature of
fibrinogen cross-linking” based on “an improper approach to product-by­
process claim interpretation.” (Appeal Br. 16.) We are not persuaded.
Claim 88 is properly interpreted by the Examiner, as discussed above, and
Campbell I teaches the cross-linking structure, as claimed. (FF 2.)
9
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Appellants contend that “the Examiner has neglected to present
evidence[] that the cross-linked fibrinogen described by Campbell I is non-
fibrillar.” (Appeal Br. 16.) We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds that
the non-fibrillar nature of the fibrinogen is inherent (FF 4), which is
consistent with Appellants statement that “[f]ibrinogen is a soluble, non-
fibrillar protein.” (Spec. 11,11. 14—15.)
Claim 98
Claim 98 recites a “composition-of-matter obtainable by the process
of claim 93.” (Appeal Br. 52.) It is thus properly interpreted as a product-
by-process claim, and its patentability does not depend on its method of
production. See In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d at 697. The claimed composition-
of-matter of claim 98 is thus similar in scope to claim 88. (Compare claim
88 to claim 93 prior to “the process comprising . . .”.) Moreover, Appellants
advance the same arguments against the anticipation rejection as set forth
above in connection with claim 88 (Appeal Br. 23—24), and they are
unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed, and of record.
Summary
Campbell I discloses all of the limitations of claims 88 and 98, either
expressly or inherently, and thus anticipates claims 88 and 98. (FF 1—5.)
Moreover, we discern no error in the Examiner’s alternate rejection for
obviousness, at least because “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.”
In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Conclusion
A preponderance of evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 88 and 98. Claims 89-92, 99-101, 134—137, and 143—
146 were not argued separately and fall with claims 88 and 98.
10
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Rejection No. 3
Issue
Whether a preponderance of evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Analysis
Claim 93
Appellants contend that the Examiner has employed circular
reasoning, focusing on the Examiner’s statement that Campbell I does not
explicitly teach cross-linking the fibrinogen with a ribose. (Appeal Br. 27—
28.) However, as the Examiner explains, while Campbell I does not
explicitly teach cross-linking the fibrinogen with a ribose in a polar organic
solvent (i.e. Campbell I does not provide a working example of such), Nevo
discloses “that ribose cross-links essentially the same biopolymers disclosed
by Campbell I,” and that “the motivation to cross-link fibrinogen by a ribose
in a polar organic solvent includes recognizing by the art that ribose in a
polar organic solvent cross-links similar compounds and [has] the
advantages of controlled cross-linking.” (Ans. 31—32.)
Appellants contend that the Examiner has mischaracterized the
teachings of Campbell I by referring to its teaching of a “polar organic
solution.” (Appeal Br. 28—29.) However, as the Examiner explains, the
solution disclosed in Campbell I can reasonably be considered a “polar
organic solution” because it “comprises water (a polar solvent) and organic
compounds (i.e. bicine).”10 (Ans. 32.)
10 We also note, but are unpersuaded by, Appellants’ objection to the
Examiner’s reference to claim 93 as reciting a “polar organic solution”
11
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Appellants contend that the Examiner has used erroneous criteria for
determining equivalency between “ribose in a polar organic solution” and “a
solution described by Campbell I.” (Appeal Br. 29-30.) We are not
persuaded. As the Examiner explains, it was recognized in the art (Nevo)
that ribose in a polar organic solvent advantageously cross-links compounds
similar to fibrinogen (e.g., fibrin). (Ans. 33.) Thus, the substitution of a
polar organic solvent, as taught by Nevo, for the polar organic solution of
Campbell I, would have been obvious. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,416 (2007).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has argued obviousness of the
individual differences rather than the claimed subject matter as a whole.
(Appeal Br. 30-33.) We are not persuaded because Appellants contention is
contrary to the record.* 11 (See, e.g., Ans. 3—10 and 34—38.)
Appellants also contend that the claimed process provides
“unexpected advantages.” (Appeal Br. 33.) This argument is unpersuasive,
at least because unexpected results must be shown to be unexpected
compared with the closest prior art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952
F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing cases). Here, Appellants’ alleged
advantages are not shown to be unexpected, particularly in light of Nevo’s
teachings. (FF 6.)
rather than a “polar organic solvent.” (Reply Br. 10.) Given the basis for
the obviousness rejection, we discern no reversible error by the Examiner.
11 We also acknowledge, but are unpersuaded by, Appellants’ argument that
the Examiner has engaged in “hindsight.” (Appeal Br. 32.) Appellants point
to no evidence that any of the Examiner’s findings were beyond the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention or could have been taken only
from Appellants’ Specification. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971).
12
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
Claim 109
Appellants indicate that claim 109 is representative of claim 154, and
advance essentially the same arguments as set forth above in connection
with claim 93. (Appeal Br. 33—35.) Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Claims 102 and 103
Claims 102 and 103 are method of treatment claims that depend on
claims 88 and 98, respectively.12 (Appeal Br. 52.) Appellants advance
essentially the same arguments set forth above in connection with claims 88
and 98, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, but also
correctly note that claims 102 and 103 are rejected as obvious, not as
anticipated. (Id. at 35—37.) As to claims 102 and 103, Appellants restate
their argument (presented in their response to the obviousness rejection of
claims 88 and 98) that “the Examiner has failed to present a reasoned basis
for the alleged obviousness, but rather presented brief and unclear
conclusory statements.” (Id. at 37.)
Appellants’ response to the obviousness rejection of claims 88 and 98
(identified as section A. 1.5.4 at Appeal Br. 17—19) appears to be based on a
misunderstanding of the rejection. (See Ans. 3—7.) Campbell I teaches
cross-linking of fibrinogen as well as fibrin with ribose. (FF 1.) Mosesson
is cited as evidence that fibrinogen can be cross-linked without conversion to
fibrin (FF 3),13 and Nevo is cited as evidence that the cross-linking of
12 Claims 102 and 103 recite “the method comprising administering to the
subject a therapeutically effective amount of the composition-of-matter of
claim [88 or 98].” (Appeal Br. 52.)
13 Mosesson also discusses the “overlapping roles” of fibrin and fibrinogen
at page 1894.
13
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
biopolymers (such as fibrin) with ribose may be advantageously conducted
in a polar organic solution. (See Ans. 27—29; FF 1 4.) Accordingly,
Appellants arguments are unpersuasive as to claims 88 and 98, and because
no additional arguments are presented as to claims 102 and 103, the
obviousness rejection of claims 102 and 103 is affirmed.
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 93, 109, 102, and 103. Claims 94—97, 110, 138—142,
147, 148, 154, and 155 were not argued separately and fall with claims 93,
109, 102, and 103.
Rejection No. 4
Rejection No. 4 based on Campbell II is, as Appellants note,
substantially identical to the basis for the rejection of the same claims
(Rejection No. 2 above), and the Examiner has relied on passages in
Campbell II which correspond to the passages in Campbell 1.14 (Appeal Br.
38—39.) Appellants thus rely on the same arguments advanced in connection
with Rejection 2, and those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set
forth above.
Appellants also argue that the working examples at pages 22—28 of
Campbell II describe cross-linked fibrinogen only in the context of
enzymatic crosslinking, that the product of the cross-linking is described as
fibrin which is a fibrillar protein, and that there is no evidence in Campbell
II of any initial preparation of non-fibrillar cross-linked fibrinogen. (Appeal
Br. 39.) Those arguments are unpersuasive because “[a]ll the disclosures in
14 Appellants acknowledge that the teachings of Campbell I and Campbell II
are very similar. (Appeal Br. 39.)
14
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
a reference must be evaluated, including nonpreferred embodiments, and a
reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In
re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (citations omitted). Here, the
Examiner cites to various teachings in Campbell II, and refers to pages 22—
28 of Campbell II as examples of cross-linked biopolymers. (Ans. 15.)
Accordingly, for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth above
in connection with Rejection No. 2, we affirm Rejection No. 4.
Rejection No. 5
Rejection No. 5 based on Campbell II is, as Appellants note,
substantially identical to a part of the basis for the rejection of the same
claims (Rejection No. 3 above), differing only in that the Examiner has
relied on passages in Campbell II which correspond to the passages in
Campbell I. (Appeal Br. 43 44.) Appellants thus rely on the same
arguments advanced in connection with Rejection No. 3, and those
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Appellants also argue, similar to above, that the working examples of
Campbell II describe cross-linking fibrin with Factor XIII involving aqueous
solutions and that “cross-linking non-fibrillar fibrinogen . . . instead of fibrin
would require modification of the explicit teachings of both Campbell II and
Nevo, for no apparent reason.” (Appeal Br. 44-45.) We are not persuaded
for the reasons set forth above in connection with Rejection No. 3, and
because the teachings of Campbell II (and Nevo) are not limited to their
working examples. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d at 651.
Accordingly, for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth above
in connection with Rejection No. 3, we affirm Rejection No. 5.
15
Appeal 2016-004706
Application 13/143,196
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of all claims on appeal.
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
16