Ex Parte 6200569 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2012

90010465 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

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.
90/010,465 04/24/2009 6200569 76642.8002.US00 2045
22918 7590 01/20/2012
PERKINS COIE LLP
P.O. BOX 1208
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1208
EXAMINER
CAMPELL, BRUCE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/20/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TANG-AN MEDICAL CO., LTD.
Appellant
____________

Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before SALLY G. LANE, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

2
This is a decision on the appeal by the Patent Owner of U.S. Patent
No. 6,200,569 from the Patent Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and
9-24 in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. The Board’s jurisdiction for
this appeal is under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 306. We reverse.

STATEMENT OF CASE
U.S. Patent No. 6,200,569 (hereinafter “the ‘569 patent”) issued
March 13, 2001. The named inventor is Nanzheng Cheng. The real party in
interest is Tang-An Medical Co. Ltd., who is the Patent Owner and
Appellant (hereinafter, “Appellant”) in this appeal (Appellant’s Amended
Appeal Brief, filed July 30, 2010 (“App. Br.”) 3).
The ‘569 patent claims methods for decreasing glycosylated
hemoglobin1 or blood glucose levels in a hyperglycemic patient comprising
administering an extract of Cinnamomum bark to hyperglycemic patients.
Hyperglycemia, or high blood sugar, is exemplified by higher than normal
levels of blood glucose. (‘569 patent, col. 1, ll. 23-25.) “Hyperglycemia is
associated with an increased risk for all the common late complications of
diabetes mellitus” (id. at col. 1, ll. 31-32). The patent describes mushroom
and plant extracts which “exhibit an insulin potentiating activity, i.e. they
increase apparent insulin activity as measured by increased glucose uptake
by cells. Improved insulin activity leads to decreased circulating insulin,
which leads to lower blood glucose and lower glycosylated hemoglobin
levels in patients” (id. at col. 3, ll. 17-23 & 56-67). A preferred source of the

1 Glycosylated hemoglobin is hemoglobin to which glucose is bound.
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

3
extracts is the bark from a cinnamon tree in the family of Cinnamomum (id.
at col. 4, ll. 2-9).
A “Request for Ex Parte Reexamination” of the issued claims of the
‘569 patent was filed April 24, 2009, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 302-307 and
37 C.F.R § 1.510. The Third-Party Requester was Avery N. Goldstein.
Reexamination was ordered. An oral hearing was held on October 19, 2011.
A written transcript will be entered into the record in due course.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-24 are pending and stand rejected by the
Examiner as follows (App. Br. 9):
1. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Kimura;2
2. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
view of Kimura and Aburada;3
3. Claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Kimura and Gray;4
4. Claims 12, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Kimura and Boynton;5
5. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Cheng6
and Kimura;

2 Yoshiyuki Kimura et al., Effects of Japanese and Chinese Traditional
Medicine “Hachimi-Gan” (“Ba-Wei-Wan”) on Lipid Metabolism in Rats
Fed High Sugar Diet, 53 PLANTA MEDICA 128-131 (1987).
3 U.S. Patent No. 4,613,591, issued Sept. 23, 1986.
4 Alison M. Gray and Peter R. Flatt, Evaluation of the antidiabetic effects of
an edible mushroom (Agaricus campestris), 53 PROC. NUTRITION SOC’Y
125A (1994).
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,175,156, . issued Dec. 29, 1992.
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

4
6. Claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Cheng, Kimura, and Boynton;
7. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Cheng, Kimura, and Aburada;
8. Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Cheng, Kimura, Aburada, and Boynton.
Claims 1 and 11 are representative and read as follows (underlining
and brackets indicate amendments to the patented claims made during the
reexamination proceeding):
1. A method for decreasing the glycosylated hemoglobin level
or blood glucose level in a hyperglycemic patient, said method
comprising:
administering to said patient a composition [comprising]
having an active ingredient consisting essentially of an effective
amount of a non-acidic, non-basic water extract or a dilute
acidic extract of [Polygonum multiform roots or] Cinnamomum
bark, [or a mixture thereof,] wherein said extract is
administered in an amount sufficient to potentiate insulin
activity in said hyperglycemic patient, whereby said
glycosylated hemoglobin level or said blood glucose level is
decreased as compared to the levels prior to treatment.

11. [The method according to claim 1, wherein said
composition further comprises] A method for decreasing the
glycosylated hemoglobin level or blood glucose level in a
hyperglycemic patient, said method comprising:
administering to said patient a composition having active
ingredients consisting essentially of an effective amount of a
non-acidic, non-basic water extract of Cinnamomum bark and a
water extract of Agaricaceae, wherein said composition is
administered in an amount sufficient to potentiate insulin

6 U.S. Patent No. 5,531,991. issued July 2, 1996.
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

5
activity in said hyperglycemic patient, whereby said
glycosylated hemoglobin level or said blood glucose level is
decreased as compared to the levels prior to treatment.

1. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF KIMURA
Findings of Fact (“FF”)
Kimura Publication
[FF1] Kimura describes a Japanese and Chinese traditional medicine
“Hachimi-Gan” which “has been clinically used in treatment of adult or
senile diseases such as diabetes, hyperlipermia, arteriosclerosis, and
arthritis.” (P. 128, col. 1.)
[FF2] Hachimi-Gan is composed of eight herbs:
Dioscoreae rhizoma (Dioscorea japonica Thunb.), Alismatis
rhizoma (Alisma orientale Juze.), Rehmanniae radix
(Rehmannia glutinosa Lib. var. purpurea Makino), Hoelen
(Poria cocos Wolf.), Moutan cortex (Paeonia moutan Sims.),
Corni fructus (cornus officinalis Sieb. et Zucc.), Aconiti tuber
(Aconitum carmichaeli Debx.), and Cinnamomi cortex
(Cinnamomum cassia Blume).
(Kimura, p. 128, col. 1; emphases omitted.)
[FF3] Kimura studied the effects of Hachimi-Gan and its constituents
“on the lipid metabolism in rats” (p. 128, col. 1).
[FF4] Rats in one group were fed a high sugar diet for sixty-one days
(“High sugar diet fed group”) (p. 128; p. 129, Table II).
[FF5] Rats in a treatment group were fed a high sugar diet and a
water extract of Hachimi-Gan for sixty-one days (“High sugar diet +
‘Hachimi-Gan’”) (p. 128; p. 129, Table II).
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

6
[FF6] Table II shows that a high sugar diet produced hyperlipermia,
elevated insulin levels, and increased triglycerides (TG) in rats (p. 129, col.
1).
[FF7] Table II shows that Hachimi-Gan administered orally to rats at
500 mg/kg/day reduced insulin and TG levels as compared to the rats fed a
high sugar diet (p. 129).
[FF8] Table II shows that the glucose levels in control rats were not
significantly different from those fed a high sugar diet or a high sugar diet
plus Hachimi-Gan (p. 129).
[FF9] Table III shows that a water extract of Cinnamomi cortex
significantly inhibited adrenaline-induced lipolysis in adipocytes (p. 129,
col. 2).
[FF10] Table IV shows that a water extract of Cinnamomi cortex
significantly inhibited adrenaline-induced lipolysis in adipocytes (p. 129,
col. 2).
[FF11] Table V shows that a water extract of Cinnamomi cortex
significantly increased lipogenesis from glucose in rats (p. 129, col. 2; p.
130).
[FF12] Table VI shows that a water extract of Cinnamomi cortex was
not significantly different from insulin alone in insulin-induced lipogenesis
(p. 130, Table VI).
[FF13] Kimura concluded:
In the experiments, it was found that additional
administration of a traditional medicine ‘Hachimi-Gan’ reduced
the levels of serum triglyceride and insulin without elevating
glucose as compared to the high sugar diet-fed groups.
(P. 130, col. 2.)
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

7
[FF14] “These findings suggest that . . . Cinnamomi cortex . . . might
have insulin-like actions, for example, an anti-lipolytic and a lipogenic
action.” (P. 130, col. 2.)
[FF15]
Therefore, Moutan cortex, Cinnamomi cortex, and Corni
fructus of a traditional medicine “Hachimi-Gan” act as insulin-
like substances and, consequently, the above natural drugs may
partly reduce the elevation of serum insulin levels without
affecting glucose levels in rats fed the high sugar diet.
(P. 130, col. 2 to p. 131, col. 1.)
[FF16]
Furthermore, cinnamic acid and cinnamic aldehyde were
isolated as anti-lipolytic substances from Cinnamomi cortex. It
was reported that cinnamic acid and cinnamic aldehyde
inhibited the VLDL synthesis from acetate in rat hepatocytes
(14). Therefore, these finding suggested that the cinnamic acid
and cinnamic aldehyde content of Cinnamomi cortex may
prevent the hyperlipemia caused by the high sugar diet.
(P. 131, col. 1.)

Analysis
Claim 1 is drawn to a method “for decreasing the glycosylated
hemoglobin level or blood glucose level in a hyperglycemic patient.” The
method comprises “administering” to a patient “a non-acidic, non-basic
water extract or a dilute acidic extract of Cinnamomum bark.” The claim
further recites that the “extract is administered in an amount sufficient to
potentiate insulin activity in said hyperglycemic patient.” The claim has a
“whereby clause” that states the result of the “administering” step: “whereby
said glycosylated hemoglobin level or said blood glucose level is decreased
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

8
as compared to the levels prior to treatment.” The Cinnamomum bark
extract thus decreases blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels
upon administration to patients.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 as obvious in view of the
teachings in the Kimura publication. Kimura describes the Chinese
traditional medicine Hachimi-Gan which comprises eight different herbs,
one of which is Cinnamomum (FF2). There are two main issues raised by
the rejection:
1. In view of Kimura, would it have been obvious to the ordinary
skilled worker to administer a water extract of Cinnamomum bark to
hyperglycemic patients?
2. Would it have been predictable that a water extract of
Cinnamomum bark, when administered to hypoglycemic patients, would be
effective in decreasing glycosylated hemoglobin or blood glucose levels in a
hyperglycemic patient?
We address each of these issues below.

Obviousness of administering a water extract of Cinnamomum bark
Hachimi-Gan, an herbal medicine comprising Cinnamomum bark
(FF2), had been used clinically prior to the filing date of the ‘569 patent to
treat various human disorders, including diabetes (FF1). Kimura studied the
effects of Hachimi-Gan, and its constituent herbs, on rats fed a high sugar
diet (FF3-FF12). Cinnamomum bark extracts were shown to have insulin-
like activity in several of the assays used (FF14), including in inhibiting
lipolysis (FF9 & FF10) and increasing lipogenesis (FF11). Kimura
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

9
suggested that Cinnamomum “may prevent the hyperlipemia caused by the
high sugar diet.” (FF16.)
Based on the actual clinical use of Hachimi-Gan, and the evidence in
Kimura that Cinnamomum extract had insulin-like activity, the Examiner
concluded that the skilled worker would have had a reason to have used
Cinnamomum extract to treat diabetes for its expected benefit (Ans. 5). The
Examiner’s reasoning was fact-based and supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellant attempts to distinguish Kimura from the claimed invention
on the grounds that the claim requires that the “glycosylated hemoglobin
level” or “blood glucose level” is “decreased as compared to the levels prior
to treatment” with the Cinnamomum extract. Appellant contends that
Kimura does not disclose or suggest that any of its extracts would decrease
blood glucose levels in a human as recited in the claim (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellant does not appear to challenge the determination that it would have
been obvious to administer Cinnamomum extract to prevent hyperlipemia
caused by a high sugar diet (FF16), but rather contends it would not have
been obvious to administer such extract for the purpose of reducing blood
sugar levels. In other words, Appellant interprets the claim to require
recognition that the extract be administered to patients for the purpose of
lowering blood glucose levels.
The preamble of claim 1 recites that the method is “for decreasing the
glycosylated hemoglobin level or blood glucose level in a hyperglycemic
patient.” Patients, as argued by Appellant, means human patients (Reply Br.
(Appellant’s Reply Brief) 7-8, dated March 21, 2011). A statement in the
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

10
claim preamble that a method is “for” producing a particular result does not
require that the practitioner carry out the method steps for the stated purpose,
or even to recognize that the recited purpose is achieved. The reason is that
the stated purpose does not change how the process is performed,7 but rather
requires appreciation or recognition that the method is carried out for that
purpose, which numerous Federal Circuit cases have found to be insufficient
to distinguish over prior art disclosing the same method steps.
MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2002); Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-79 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). Although such principles were enunciated in the context of
section 102 anticipation rejections, they apply equally to section 103
obviousness rejections where the claimed method steps are suggested by the
cited prior art.
Therefore, while Kimura suggested administering Cinnamomum
extract to treat hyperlipemia (FF16), a purpose different from the claimed
purpose of reducing glycosylated hemoglobin or blood glucose levels,
because the administering step is the same as in the claim, we conclude that
the claimed method would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. The fact that Kimura suggested a different purpose for administering

7 In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368,
1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the court treated a claim expression (“method for
treating a cancer patient to effect regression of a taxol-sensitive tumor, said
method being associated with reduced hematologic toxicity”) as non-
limiting because “[t]he expression does not result in a manipulative
difference in the steps of the claim.”

Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

11
Cinnamomum extract does not change the way in which the extract is
administered. The only difference between the claimed method and the
method suggested by Kimura is the recognition that the Cinnamomum
would reduce blood sugar, which is insufficient to distinguish the claim from
Kimura. Appellant has not established that the step of administering the
extract to hyperglycemic patients is any different when it is done to treat
hyperlipemia, rather than to lower blood glucose levels. See In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claim 1 also recites, after the step of “administering to hyperglycemic
patients, “whereby said glycosylated hemoglobin level or said blood glucose
level is decreased as compared to the levels prior to treatment.” This phrase
states the result of administering the Cinnamomum bark. “A ‘whereby’
clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds
nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments
Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Consequently, the whereby clause does not distinguish claim 1 from
Kimura.

Would it have been predictable that a water extract of Cinnamomum bark
would be effective in decreasing the glycosylated hemoglobin level or blood
glucose level in a hyperglycemic patient?
In this case, the inventor found that Cinnamomum bark lowered blood
glucose levels and/or glycosylated hemoglobin levels. Appellant contends
that it would not have been obvious to the skilled worker that Cinnamomum
would have such activities (App. Br. 19). We thus must consider whether
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

12
this glucose lowering activity was predictable based on Kimura, and if not,
is its discovery is sufficient to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness when the evidence of record as a whole is considered .
The Examiner acknowledged that Kimura did not expressly teach a
glucose-lowering effect, but asserted that “the Kimura disclosure would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Cinnamomum extract
could be used for this purpose” (Ans. 17, ¶ D.) However, the Examiner did
not provide adequate evidence to support this statement. The Examiner
stated that the “eight plant materials tested by Kimura are ingredients in a
traditional medicine used clinically to treat diabetes, so there was a
reasonable expectation that one or more would be useful for treating
hyperglycemia.” (Ans. 13). Treating diabetes, however, is not the same
thing as reducing blood glucose levels as recited in the claim. It is true that
Kimura explicitly taught that Cinnamomum had insulin-like properties, but
Kimura did not identify lowering blood sugar glucose as one of these
properties. Rather, Kimura suggested Cinnamomum extract for preventing
hyperlipemia caused by a high-sugar diet (FF16). Moreover, Hachimi-Gan
was explicitly described by Kimura as not affecting glucose levels in its
animal model (FF15).
The Examiner also stated:
Kimura concludes that Cinnamomum, as well as two other
ingredients of Hachimi-Gan, “act as insulin-like substances” (p.
131). This would suggest to one skilled in the art that
Cinnamomum extract could lower blood glucose level, since
this activity of insulin is extremely well known in the art.
(Ans. 14).
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

13
This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The only properties
mentioned by Kimura for Cinnamomum are its anti-lipolytic and lipogenic
activities (FF14). Based on these activities, Kimura suggested that
Cinnamomum “may prevent the hyperlipemia caused by the high sugar
diet.” (FF16). The Examiner did not establish, however, that Cinnamomum
affected blood sugar levels.
To the contrary, Dr. Donald Graves, a scientist who conducts research
on cinnamon extract in relation to insulin action, testified that the results
described by Kimura “do not make it obvious how cinnamon extract could
decrease blood glucose level in humans by the effects on in vitro lipolysis
and lipogenesis shown in Kimura’s study.” (Declaration by Dr. Donald J.
Graves (“Graves Decl.”) ¶ 5.) The Examiner responded that the “eight plant
materials tested by Kimura are ingredients in a traditional medicine used
clinically to treat diabetes, so there was a reasonable expectation that one or
more would be useful for treating hyperglycemia.” (Ans. 13.) However, the
issue is not whether Cinnamomum would be useful for treating
hyperglycemia, but whether it would have been expected to reduce blood
sugar levels. We see no compelling evidence that it would.
As argued by the Patent Owner, Kimura did not teach or suggest that
its Cinnamomum extract decreased blood glucose levels in hyperglycemic
animals.
First, there is no evidence that the rat model utilized by Kimura, in
which rats were fed a high sugar diet, produced hyperglycemia (high blood
glucose). Kimura’s Table II summarizes the results of an experiment in
which rats were fed a high sugar diet. Blood glucose levels in control rats
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

14
(column 1) were not reported as significantly different from those fed a high
sugar diet (column 2) or a high sugar diet plus Hachimi-Gan (column 3)
(FF8). Thus, Kimura did not administer Hachimi-Gan to hyperglycemic
rats.
The experiment summarized in Table II does not demonstrate that
Hachimi-Gan (column 3) changed glucose levels as compared to the high
sugar diet-fed group (column 2). Kimura stated that Hachimi-Gan “drugs
may partly reduce the elevation of serum insulin levels without affecting
glucose levels in rats fed the high sugar diet.” (FF13.) Kimura indicated that
that such effect was the property of the “natural drugs” comprising Hachimi-
Gan (FF14). Based on this evidence, persons of ordinary skill in the art
would not have reasonably expected that Hachimi-Gan, or the natural drugs
which comprise it, would decrease blood sugar levels. The Examiner did
not establish that Kimura’s teachings would have suggested such activity to
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Expert testimony supports the Patent Owner’s position that Kimura
did not suggest that Cinnamomum would decreases sugar levels in
hyperglycemic humans. Dr. Graves reviewed the Kimura publication and
provided his written opinion on Kimura’s in vitro lipid assays and their
relevance to blood glucose levels (Graves Decl. ¶¶ 1 & 2). After studying
the experiments performed by Kimura, Dr. Graves testified that “when
Kimura’s Table III-VI are considered, they do not make it obvious how
cinnamon extract could decrease blood glucose level in humans by the
effects on in vitro lipolysis and lipogenesis shown in Kimura’s study.”
(Graves Decl. ¶ 5.)
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

15
In sum, the evidence does not establish that Kimura discloses or
suggests that Cinnamomum bark would have been predicted to decrease
glucose levels when administered to hyperglycemic patients. The inventor’s
discovery of this property is a proper basis upon which to rebut the prima
facie case of obviousness. As acknowledged by the Examiner, Kimura did
not administer a Cinnamomum extract to human patients, nor did Kimura
administer the extract to hyperglycemic rats. Thus, the discovery that such
extract has glucose lowering properties is not the “[m]ere recognition of
latent properties in the prior art . . . .” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Kimura – the prior art cited in this rejection – did
not carry out the claimed “administering” step.
In Baxter, the applicant had argued that the claimed plasticized blood
donor bag comprised of DEHP had unexpected properties in suppressing
hemolysis of red blood cells stored inside it. Baxter, 952 F.2d at 389. The
court found that such evidence was insufficient to rebut prima facie
obviousness because the prior art disclosed DEHP-plasticized donor bags.
Therefore, Baxter’s blood bag had the same hemolytic-suppressing function
as the prior art blood bags – albeit unknown at the time of the invention.
Baxter, 952 F.2d at 391. In this case, Kimura disclosed a Cinnamomum
extract, but did not administer the extract to human patients who were
hyperglycemic. Thus, the glucose lowering property was not manifested by
the prior art.
An unrecognized result would not have been a basis for patentability
in circumstances where both the claimed invention and the closest prior art
practiced the same step which gave rise it. However, a result which is the
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

16
outcome of an invention suggested by the prior art can be a proper basis for
patentability – as long as the result was not a result of a step identically
accomplished by the prior art and, when compared to the closest prior art,
would not have been predicted by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
As stated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007), the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
In this case, the result that Cinnamomum bark decreased glycosylated
hemoglobin level and/or blood glucose levels was not a predictable result.
We conclude that the discovery that an extract of Cinnamomum bark
decreased glycosylated hemoglobin level and/or blood glucose levels, when
administered to hyperglycemic patients, is sufficient to rebut the prima facie
obviousness of the claimed subject matter because it would not reasonably
have been predicted to do so based on the prior art. While the recognition of
such result was insufficient to distinguish the step carried out in the claimed
method from the step suggested by Kimura, because this arises in the context
of section 103, an appellant is not foreclosed from relying on the same result
to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 as obvious in view of the Kimura
publication.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS 2-8
Claims 5, 6, and 11-24 all involve the administration of Cinnamomum
bark and an additional substance (e.g., water extract of Agaricaceae in claim
11; trivalent chromium salt in claim 12). All the rejections are based on the
Appeal 2011-008841
Reexamination Control 90/010,465
Patent 6,200,569 B1

17
obviousness of administering Cinnamomum extract to hyperglycemic
patients, a determination that we have found to be an error in view of the
extract’s glucose-lowering activity. None of the additionally cited
publications were found to supplement this deficiency. Consequently, we
reverse rejections 2-8 of claims 5, 6, and 11-24.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

REVERSED

bim
FOR PATENT OWNER:

PERKINS COIE, LLP
P.O. BOX 1208
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1208

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

AVERY N. GOLDSTEIN
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
P.O. BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021