AYAWANE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 15, 2021

2021000784 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021)

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.
14/786,980 10/25/2015 Latifa DAHRI CORREIA 0720-1519 1801
65363 7590 10/15/2021
Todd A. VAUGHN
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
EXAMINER
CRAIGO, BAHAR ALAWI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2021 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):
admin4@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LATIFA DAHRI CORREIA
____________

Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 13–21, 31, and 32 (Final Act.2 2).3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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
“AYAWANE” (Appellant’s December 7, 2018, Supplemental Appeal Brief
(Appeal Br.) 3).
2 Examiner’s May 7, 2018, Final Office Action.
3 Pending claims 24–30 stand withdrawn from consideration (Final Act. 2).
Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure:
relates to the field of hydrogels based on hyaluronic acid. In
particular, it relates to phosphorylated hydrogels obtained by
co-cross-linking hyaluronic acid with dextran, as well as the
process for preparing same. The invention also relates to the
use of said hydrogel for the encapsulation and extended release
of active principles as well as cells for use in regenerative
human and veterinary medicine.
(Spec.4 1:1–8.) Appellant’s claims 13 and 31 are reproduced below:
13. A co-cross-linked phosphorylated polysaccharide hydrogel
consisting essentially of:
dextran;
hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof, optionally
functionalized; and
a phosphodiester covalent bond and/or a
polyphosphodiester covalent bond linking the dextran with the
hyaluronic acid or the salt thereof to form the co-cross-linked
phosphorylated polysaccharide hydrogel.
(Appeal Br. 13.)
31. The co-cross-linked phosphorylated polysaccharide
hydrogel of claim 13, wherein a majority of dextran monomers
in the co-cross-linked phosphorylated polysaccharide hydrogel
are linked at position C2 with respective hyaluronic acid
monomers or salts thereof.
(Id. at 15.)

4 Appellant’s October 25, 2015, Specification.
Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

3
Grounds of rejection before this Panel for review:
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under the written description
provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claims 13–21 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Le Visage5 and Dulong.6
Claims 13–21 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Le Visage, Dulong, and Sun.7

Written Description and Definiteness:
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejections under 35
U.S.C. §§ 112(a) or 112(b). These rejections are, therefore, summarily
affirmed.

Obviousness:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?

5 Le Visage, WO 2009/047346 A1, published Apr. 16, 2009.
6 Dulong et al., Hyaluronan-based hydrogels particles prepared by
crosslinking with trisodium trimetaphosphate. Synthesis and
characterization, 57 Carbohydrate Polymers 1–6 (2004).
7 Sun et al., Engineering dextran-based scaffolds for drug delivery and tissue
repair, 7 Nanomedicine 1771–1784 (2012).
Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

4
ANALYSIS
The rejection over the combination of Le Visage and Dulong:
Based on the combination of Le Visage and Dulong, Examiner
concludes that, before the effective filing date of Appellant’s claimed
invention, it would have been prima facie obvious “to cross-link dextran and
hyaluronic acid with sodium trimetaphosphate” (Final Act. 6).
Appellant does not dispute Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been prima facie obvious, in view of the combination of Le Visage and
Dulong, “to cross-link dextran and hyaluronic acid with sodium
trimetaphosphate” (see id.; cf. Appeal Br. 5–10).
Instead, Appellant contends that Le Visage’s use of sodium carbonate
in the preparation of its hydrogel “would serve to ‘materially affect the basic
and novel characteristic(s)’ of [Appellant’s] . . . claimed invention” (Appeal
Br. 6). Specifically, Appellant contends:
[T]he addition of another salt such as sodium carbonate would
not serve to promote or enhance the basic and novel
characteristic(s) of the claimed invention. But rather, would
actually “materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)”
of the claimed invention, namely the formation of a strong
cross-link.
For instance, the addition of sodium carbonate could
cause an undesirable secondary reaction such as the degradation
of STMP into STPP. The addition of sodium carbonate could
also increase the pH level above the threshold level (pH 8)
during the activation phase of hydroxyl groups of the
hyaluronic acid that would cause another undesirable secondary
reaction such as the spontaneous opening of the cyclic
trimetaphosphate molecule.
(id. at 8–9 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

5
We are not persuaded. As Examiner explains, Appellant’s claimed
invention is “directed to a product, [not a] . . . method of making” and
“sodium carbonate is not present in the final hydrogel [product]” made
obvious by the combination of Le Visage and Dulong (Ans.8 4; see also id.
at 4–5 (Examiner explains why sodium carbonate is not present in the final
hydrogel product made obvious by the combination of Le Visage and
Dulong)). In addition, Examiner explains that although Appellant may
prefer that the “activation phase” of the method for preparing its final
product “is performed at a basic pH below 8,” Appellant discloses that
[i]n the preparation process described, the different steps of the
process are performed in a basic medium, the pH value of
which is substantially the same. Each of the steps is performed
in a basic medium at a pH capable of being between 8 and 14,
preferably between 8 and 10.
(see Ans. 6 (citing Spec. 16:31–17:3 and 18:30–31).) Thus, Examiner finds
that Appellant’s disclosure relating to the preparation of its claimed hydrogel
is not limited to a basic pH below 8 (see Ans. 6).
In addition, we are not persuaded by the assertions of Appellant’s
counsel relating to possible results that “could” happen as a result of the use
of sodium carbonate in the preparation of the hydrogel made obvious by the
combination of Le Visage and Dulong (see Appeal Br. 8–9). See In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the weight of the evidence on
this record fails to support Appellant’s contention that “the addition of

8 Examiner’s March 13, 2019, Answer.
Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

6
sodium carbonate . . . would serve to ‘materially affect the basic and novel
characteristic(s)’ of . . . [Appellant’s] claimed invention (Appeal Br. 6).

The rejection over the combination of Le Visage, Dulong, and Sun:
Appellant fails to address Examiner’s conclusion that the combination
Le Visage, Dulong, and Sun makes obvious, before the effective filing date
of Appellant’s claimed invention, the cross-linking of dextran at position C2
(see Appeal Br. 9–10; cf. Appeal Br. 5–10). Thus, we are compelled to find
that the weight of the evidence on this record supports Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness.

CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Le Visage and Dulong is affirmed. Claims 14–21 and 32
are not separately argued and fall with claim 13.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Le Visage, Dulong, and Sun is affirmed.

Appeal 2021-000784
Application 14/786,980

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31, 32 112(a) Written
Description
31, 32
31, 32 112(b) Indefiniteness 31, 32
13–21, 32 103 Le Visage, Dulong 13–21, 32
31 103 Le Visage, Dulong,
Sun
31
Overall
Outcome
13–21, 31,
32

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019).

AFFIRMED