LUTZ, ROBERT J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2020

14509809 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 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.
14/509,809 10/08/2014 ROBERT J. LUTZ 2921.0550003/EKS/CLD 8465
95812 7590 01/15/2020
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HUFF, SHEELA JITENDRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. LUTZ and JOSE PONTE
____________

Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 225–354. 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 ImmunoGen,
Inc. (Appellant’s October 10, 2017 Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 3).
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to methods of administering anti-
FOLR1 immunoconjugates for the treatment of diseases, such as cancer.
The methods provide dosing regimens that minimize unwanted side-effects.”
(Spec. ¶ 3).2 Appellant’s claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method for treating a human patient having an FOLR1-
expressing ovarian cancer or cancer of the peritoneum
comprising administering to the patient an immunoconjugate
which binds to FOLRl polypeptide,
wherein the immunoconjugate comprises an antibody or
antigen-binding fragment thereof that comprises the variable
light chain (VL) complementarity determining region (CDR)-1,
VL CDR-2, VL CDR-3, variable heavy chain (VH) CDR-1, VH
CDR-2, and VH CDR-3 of SEQ ID NOs: 6-9, 11, and 12,
respectively, and a maytansinoid, and
wherein the immunoconjugate is administered at a dose of 6
milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) of adjusted ideal body
weight (AIBW) of the patient.
(Appeal Br. 36.)
Grounds of rejection before this Panel for review:3
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231–243, 245, 247–254, 258, 259, 261–
267, 269, 271–277, 279, 281–288, 292, 293, 295–301, and 306–354 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Lutz ’282,4
as evidenced by Ab ’181.5

2 Appellant’s October 8, 2014 Specification.
3 Application 14/245,797 abandoned November 13, 2017. Application
15/388,873 abandoned December 7, 2018. Thus, the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejections, based on the claims of these
Applications, are moot and will not be further discussed.
4 Lutz et al., US 2012/0282282 A1, published Nov. 8, 2012.
5 Ab et al., US 2012/0009181 A1, published Jan. 12, 2012.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

3
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Ab ’528.6
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Carrigan ’675,7 as evidenced by Ab ’181.
Claims 1 and 225–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, and Armstrong.8
Claims 1 and 225–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675 in combination with Armstrong.
Claims 1 and 225–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Armstrong,
Green,9 Geraghty,10 Fuchs,11 and Narain.12
Claims 1 and 225–354 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675 in combination with Armstrong,
Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.

6 Ab et al., WO 2011/106528 A1, published Sept. 1, 2011.
7 Carrigan et al., WO 2012/135675 A2, published Oct. 4, 2012.
8 D.K. Armstrong et al., Efficacy and safety of farletuzumab, a humanized
monoclonal antibody to folate receptor alpha, in platinum-sensitive relapsed
ovarian cancer subjects: preliminary data from a phase-2 study, 7 European
Journal of Cancer Supplements 450, Abstr. 8000 (2009).
9 Bruce Green & Stephen B. Duffull, What is the best size descriptor to use
for pharmacokinetic studies in the obese?, 58 Brit. J. Clinical Pharmacology
119–33 (2004).
10 Geraghty et al., US 2009/0162374 A1, published June 25, 2009.
11 Fuchs et al., US 2012/0148577 A1, published June 14, 2012.
12 Narain et al., US 2014/0302014 A1, published Oct. 9, 2014.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

4
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’27513 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’96614 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Carrigan ’43215 in view of Ab ’181, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’28016 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
Claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288,
292–301, and 305–354 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’49017 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.

13 Ab et al., US 9,133,275 B2, issued Sept. 15, 2015.
14 Ab et al., US 8,557,966 B2, issued Oct. 15, 2013.
15 Carrigan et al., US 8,709,432 B2, issued Apr. 29, 2014.
16 Ab et al., US 9,670,280 B2, issued June 6, 2017.
17 Ab et al., US 9,598,490 B2, issued Mar. 21, 2017.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

5
Anticipation:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support
Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s claimed invention is anticipated?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Appellant defines
[t]he term “ideal body weight” (IBW) . . . [as] a size descriptor
that is unrelated to total body weight. IBW is an estimate of
weight corrected for sex and height, and optionally frame size.
IBW can be calculated, for example, using the formulas IBW =
0.9H-88 (for males) and IBW = 0.9H-92 (for females), wherein
H=height in cm.
(Spec. ¶ 69.)
FF 2. Appellant defines “[t]he term ‘adjusted ideal body weight’ (AIBW)
or ‘adjusted body weight’ (ADJ) . . . [as] a size descriptor that accounts for
sex, total body weight, and height. . . . AIBW (ADJ) can be calculated, for
example, using the formula ADJ = IBW + 0.4(weight in kg – IBW)” (Spec.
¶ 71).
FF 3. Ab ’181 discloses that “Folate Receptor 1 (FOLR1), also known as
Folate Receptor-alpha, or Folate Binding Protein, is an N-glycosylated
protein expressed on plasma membrane of cells” (Ab ’181 ¶ 4; see also Ab
’528 ¶ 4; Carrigan ’675 ¶ 4; Spec. ¶ 4).
FF 4. Ab ’181 discloses that “FOLR1 is overexpressed in [a] vast majority
of ovarian cancers” (see Ab ’181 ¶ 5; see also Ab ’528 ¶ 5; Carrigan ’675
¶ 5; Spec. ¶ 5).
FF 5. Ab ’181 “relates to antibodies and immunoconjugates that bind to
human folate receptor 1, as well as to methods of using the antibodies and
immunoconjugates for the treatment of diseases, such as cancer” (Ab ’181
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

6
¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 249 (Ab ’181 discloses a “methods of treating[, inter alia,
ovarian] cancer comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount
of a FOLR1-finding agent to a subject”); id. ¶ 263 (Ab ’181 discloses that
“[t]he administering physician can easily determine optimum dosages,
dosing methodologies and repetition rates”)).
FF 6. Lutz ’282 “relates to the identification that inclusion of at least one
charged group on a cross linker decreases ocular toxicity associated with
administration of an antibody drug conjugate [(ADC)]” (Lutz ’282 ¶ 2; see
id. ¶ 8 (Lutz ’282 “provides a method of reducing ADC-induced side effects
or toxicity arising from the use of an ADC”); see also id. ¶¶ 9–11; see Ans. 4
(citing Lutz ’282 ¶ 373) (Examiner finds that Lutz ’282 discloses
“intravenous administration of the conjugate”)).
FF 7. Lutz ’282:
[P]rovides a method of inhibiting tumor growth in a subject
comprising administering an ADC of the following formula
CB-L-DM4 or DM4-L-CB to said subject, wherein CB is a cell
binding agent, L is a linker containing at least one charged
group, and DM4 is N(2’)deacetyl-N2’-( 4-mercapto-4-methyl-
1-oxopentyl)-maytansine, said method comprising
administering said ADC at a dose or frequency equivalent to a
dose or frequency of an ADC, which has the same CB and
DM4, but the linker does not contain at least one charged
group, that induces ocular toxicity when administered to a
subject of the same mammalian species.
(Lutz ’282 ¶ 7.)
FF 8. Lutz ’282 discloses that ovarian tumor is tumor within the scope of
Lutz ’282’s disclosure (Lutz ’282 ¶ 268; see Ans. 4–5).
FF 9. Lutz ’282 discloses administering an ADC at a dose of “between
about 4 mg/kg and about 16 mg/kg” (Lutz ’282 ¶ 8; see Ans. 4).
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

7
FF 10. Lutz ’282 discloses “anti-FOLR1 antibodies (e.g., huMov19
(M9346A))” as an example of a cell-binding agent (CB) (Lutz ’282 ¶ 119;
see Ans. 4 (Examiner finds that Lutz ’282 “discloses a conjugate of
huMov19-sulfo-SPDB-DM4,” wherein the huMov19 antibody comprises
sequences as set forth in Appellant’s SEQ ID Nos: 6–9, 11, and 12)).
FF 11. Examiner finds that Lutz ’282 discloses “conjugates of 6–7.6
maytansinoids per antibody” (Ans. 5 (citing Lutz ’282 ¶¶ 83 and 368)).
FF 12. Ab ’528:
[P]rovides a method of inhibiting tumor growth in a subject
comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of
an immunoconjugate having the formula (A) - (L) - (C),
wherein: (A) is an antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof
that specifically binds a human folate receptor 1; (L) is a linker;
and (C) is a cytotoxin selected from the group consisting of a
maytansinoid and a maytansinoid analog.
(Ab ’528 ¶ 34; see also id. ¶ 2 (Ab ’528 “relates to antibodies and
immunoconjugates that bind to human folate receptor 1, as well as to
methods of using the antibodies and immunoconjugates for the treatment of
diseases, such as cancer”); id. ¶ 11; see Ans. 6 (Examiner finds that Ab ’528
discloses the use of huMov19-sulfo-SPDB-DM4 for use “in vivo to treat
tumors in mice,” wherein the conjugate “can be administered parenterally in
addition to intravenously for the treatment of tumors”).)
FF 13. Ab ’528 defines the term cancer as including ovarian cancer (Ab
’528 ¶ 86; see Ans. 6).
FF 14. Ab ’528 discloses the use of “FOLR-1 binding agents [that] are
humanized versions of the murine Mov19 antibody,” i.e. huMov19 (Ab ’528
¶¶ 108 and 113; see Ans. 5–6 (Examiner finds that Ab ’528 discloses
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

8
“huMov19-sulfo-SPDB-DM4,” wherein the huMov19 antibody comprises
sequences as set forth in Appellant’s SEQ ID Nos: 6–9, 11, and 12)).
FF 15. Ab ’528 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can easily
determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition rates[,
wherein] [i]n certain embodiments, dosage is from 0.01 µg to 100 mg per kg
of body weight, and can be given once or more daily, weekly, monthly or
yearly” (Ab ’528 ¶ 237; see Ans. 6).
FF 16. Carrigan ’675 “relates to increasing the efficacy of the treatment of
cancers characterized by the overexpression of human folate receptor 1
(FOLR1) . . . with a FOLR1 antagonist, e.g., a FOLR1 immunoconjugate”
(Carrigan ’675 ¶ 2; see Ans. 7 (citing Carrigan ’675) (Examiner finds that
the immunoconjugate “can be administered parenterally in addition to
intravenously for the treatment of tumors”)).
FF 17. Carrigan ’675 defined
[t]he term “immunoconjugate” . . . as . . . a compound or a
derivative thereof that is linked to a cell binding agent (i.e., an
anti-FOLR1 antibody or fragment thereof) and is defined by a
generic formula: C-L-A, wherein C = cytotoxin, L = linker,
and A = cell binding agent or anti-FOLR1 antibody or antibody
fragment.
(Carrigan ’675 ¶ 70.)
FF 18. Carrigan ’675 discloses that “the anti-FOLR1 antibody is
huMOV19” (Carrigan ’675 ¶ 16; see Ans. 7 (Examiner finds that Carrigan
’675 discloses “huMov19-sulfo-SPDB-DM4 IMGN853,” wherein the
huMov19 antibody comprises sequences as set forth in Appellant’s SEQ ID
Nos: 6–9, 11, and 12)).
FF 19. Carrigan ’675 defines the term cancer as including ovarian cancer
(Carrigan ’675 ¶ 72; see Ans. 7).
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

9
FF 20. Carrigan ’675 discloses that the cytotoxin may be maytansinoid
(Carrigan ’675 ¶ 16).
FF 21. Carrigan ’675 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can
easily determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition
rates. In certain embodiments, dosage is from 0.01 µg to 100 mg per kg of
body weight, and can be given once or more daily, weekly, monthly or
yearly” (Carrigan ’675 ¶ 155; see Ans. 7 (Examiner finds that Carrigan ’675
discloses dosages in the range “of 0.1-20 mg/kg” that “can be administered
monthly . . . and once every three weeks,” wherein “the administering
physician can determine the optimum dosages”)).
ANALYSIS
Examiner finds that each of Lutz ’282 and Carrigan ’675, as
evidenced by Ab ’181, and Carrigan ’675 anticipate Appellant’s claimed
invention (Ans. 4–8). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains, “the cited references disclose dosing based
on . . . [Total Body Weight (TBW)]” and, therefore, cannot anticipate
Appellant’s claimed invention, which requires “administration based on
adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW)” (Appeal Br. 8; cf. FF 1–2 (defining the
terms ideal body weight (IBW) and adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW),
respectively); see Birrer Decl.18 ¶ 8 (“all of the[] dose ranges in Lutz [’282],
Ab [’181], and Carrigan [’675] refer to doses based on total body weight”);
First Ponte Decl.19 ¶ 10 (“Neither Lutz nor Ab [’181] provides any reasons
to administer an anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate to a human patient based on
AIBW. The only doses even mentioned in these documents are based on

18 Declaration of Michael J. Birrer, M.D., Ph.D., signed April 10, 2017.
19 Declaration of Dr. Jose Ponte, signed November 30, 2015.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

10
milligrams per kilograms of total body weight”); Rashkova Decl.20 ¶ 7
(“AIBW is a different method than either TBW or [body surface areas
(BSA)] . . . for calculating the dose of medicine to be administered to a
patient”); see generally Reply Br. 3–9).
In response, Examiner asserts that “Examiner is well aware that TBW
dosing is different from AIBW dosing” and directs attention to Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain “all of which[, Examiner asserts,] have been
used in the 103 rejections” (Ans. 37). Nonetheless, Examiner finds that Lutz
’282 is “anticipatory to the extent that there is a species within the dose
range in the reference that reads on [A]ppellant’s dose” (Ans. 38). Stated
differently, Lutz ’282 inherently teaches Appellant’s claimed invention
because Lutz ’282 may teach a TBW dosage that might fall within the scope
of Appellant’s AIBW dosage. We are not persuaded. See In re Robertson,
169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Examiner failed to establish an
evidentiary basis on this record to support a finding of anticipation.
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support
Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s claimed invention is anticipated.
The rejection of claims 1, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231-243, 245, 247–254,
258, 259, 261–267, 269, 271–277, 279, 281–288, 292, 293, 295–301, and

20 Declaration of Rashkova, Ph.D., Pharm.D., BCPS, signed April 10, 2017.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

11
306–354 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Lutz ’282,
as evidenced by Ab ’181 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267,
269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and 305–354 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Ab ’528 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267,
269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and 305–354 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Carrigan ’675, as evidenced by Ab ’181 is reversed.

Obviousness:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 22. Examiner relies on Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Ab ’528, and Carrigan ’675
as discussed above (see FF 3–21; see generally Ans. 9 and 13).
FF 23. Examiner finds that Ab ’181 “discloses antibodies to FOLR1 and
immunoconjugates thereof wherein the antibody” comprises sequences as
set forth in Appellant’s SEQ ID Nos: 6–9, 11, 12, 13, and 15 “and the use of
these compounds for the treatment of cancer” (Ans. 9).
FF 24. Examiner finds that Ab ’181 discloses “huMov19-sulfo-SPDB-DM4
and its use[] in vivo to treat tumors in mice,” including “ovarian cancer and
cancer of the peritoneum” (Ans. 9).
FF 25. Examiner finds that Ab ’181 discloses “dosages . . . [in the] range
from 0.01µg-100mg/kg and can be administered monthly . . . and once every
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

12
three weeks and the administering physician can determine the optimum
dosages” (Ans. 9; see also Ab ’181 ¶ 263).
FF 26. Examiner finds that Ab ’181 discloses that the immunoconjugate
“can be administered parenterally in addition to intravenously for the
treatment of tumors” (Ans. 9–10; see Ab ’181 ¶ 261).
FF 27. Examiner finds that the combination of Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181 fails
to disclose “parenteral administration” or an “ovarian cancer . . . [that is]
platinum resistant, relapsed or refractory” (Ans. 9).
FF 28. Examiner finds that Ab ’528 and Carrigan ’675 fail to disclose an
“ovarian cancer . . . [that is] platinum resistant, relapsed or refractory” (Ans.
13).
FF 29. Examiner finds that Armstrong discloses the “use of anti-folate
antibodies for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapsed and platinum
resistant ovarian cancers (Ans. 10 (citing Armstrong, Abstract); see also id.
at 12, 13, and 15).
FF 30. Examiner finds that the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181 and
Armstrong fails to “determin[e] the [immunoconjugate] dose using AIBW”
(Ans. 11).
FF 31. Examiner finds that either of Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675 in
combination with Armstrong fails to “determin[e] the [immunoconjugate]
dose using AIBW” (Ans. 14).
FF 32. Green discloses:
For drugs that are dosed chronically, and
therefore . . . [clearance] is of primary concern, dosing for
obese patients should not be based on their total weight. If a
weight-based dose individualization is required then we would
suggest that chronic drug dosing in the obese subject should be

Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

13
based on lean body weight, at least until a more robust size
descriptor becomes available.
(Green, Abstract; Ans. 12 (Examiner finds that Green “discloses the use of
ABW . . . for dosing in obese patients”); see also Ans. 15.)
FF 33. Geraghty discloses “methods and compositions for the treatment of
autoimmune and alloimmune diseases” (Geraghty ¶ 3).
FF 34. Examiner finds that Geraghty “discloses the use of dosing according
to adjusted ideal body weight or actual body weight (whichever is lower)
when administering thiotepa” (Ans. 12 (citing Geraghty ¶ 84); see id. at 15).
FF 35. Fuchs discloses “[a] lymphocytotoxic, but hematopoietic stem cell-
sparing, high-dose amount of an oxazaphosphorine drug such as, for
example, cyclophosphamide, administered post-transplantation can be used
to reduce transplant rejection, including graft-versus-hose-disease (GVHD)”
(Fuchs, Abstract).
FF 36. Examiner finds that Fuchs “discloses the use of dosing according to
adjusted ideal body weight or actual body weight (whichever is lower) when
administering cyclophosphamide” (Ans. 12 (citing Fuchs ¶ 120); see id. at
15).
FF 37. Narain “relates to methods for the treatment of oncological disorders
comprising administration of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) and a
chemotherapeutic agent” (Narain ¶ 2).
FF 38. Examiner finds that Narain “discloses the use of dosing according to
adjusted ideal body weight or actual body weight (whichever is lower) when
administering Busulfan (chemotherapeutic)” (Ans. 12 (citing Narain, Table
3, page 46); see id. at 15).

Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

14
ANALYSIS
The rejections over: (a) Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181, (b) Ab ’528, or (c) Carrigan
’675, in combination with Armstrong:
Each of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Ab ’528, and Carrigan ’675 are discussed
above, with respect to the anticipation rejection (see FF 22).
Examiner finds that the combination of Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181 fails to
disclose “parenteral administration” or an “ovarian cancer . . . [that is]
platinum resistant, relapsed or refractory” (FF 27) and that Ab ’528 and
Carrigan ’675 fail to disclose an “ovarian cancer . . . [that is] platinum
resistant, relapsed or refractory” (FF 28). Examiner, therefore, relies on
Armstrong to make up for these deficiencies (FF 29; see Ans. 10 and 13,
respectively).
Based on the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, and Armstrong,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer the
conjugates either parenterally or intravenously with the expected benefit of
treating the tumors (Ans. 10). With respect to the rejection based on Ab
’528 or Carrigan ’675 in combination with Armstrong, Examiner concludes
that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to use the anti-folate antibody “conjugate of
either of the primary references for the treatment of” “platinum sensitive
relapsed and platinum resistant ovarian cancers” (Ans. 13–14). We are not
persuaded.
As Examiner recognizes: (a) Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181, (b) Ab ’528, or
(c) Carrigan ’675, in combination with Armstrong fail to “determin[e] the
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

15
[immunoconjugate] dose using AIBW” (FF 30–31). Thus, these rejection
suffer the same deficiency discussed above with respect to the anticipation
rejections and are reversed (see generally Appeal Br. 17–25; Reply Br. 10–
13).

The rejection over: (a) Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181, (b) Ab ’528, or (c) Carrigan
’675, in combination with Armstrong, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
Appellant does not separately argue its claims. Thus, Appellant’s
claim 1, reproduced above, is representative.
Based on the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Armstrong, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain, Examiner concludes that, at the time
Appellant’s invention was made, it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to administer the conjugates
either parenterally or intravenously with the expected benefit of
treating the tumors. [Because] Armstrong . . . disclose[s] the
treatment of platinum resistant (refractory) or platinum
sensitive relapsed ovarian cancers using antifolate antibodies
and the primary reference uses anti-folate antibodies in their
conjugate, the use of the conjugate of the primary reference to
treat the aforementioned cancers would also be obvious.
Additionally, . . . [Ab ’181] discloses that “the administering
physician can determine the optimum dosages” and . . . [Green,
Geraghtry, Fuchs, and Narain] all disclose the use of AIBW to
determine dosages and [because] dosing according to AIBW is
known in the art, it would have obvious in view of the
statement in . . . [Ab ’181] to dose according to AIBW.
(Ans. 12–13.) With respect to the rejection based on Ab ’528 or Carrigan
’675 in combination with Armstrong, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it
would have been prima facie
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

16
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to the use of the conjugate
of either of . . . [Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675] for the treatment of
the aforementioned cancers. Additionally, both . . . [Ab ’528 or
Carrigan ’675] disclose that “the administering physician can
determine the optimum dosages” and . . . [Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, and Narain] all disclose the use of AIBW to determine
dosages and [because] dosing according to AIBW is known in
the art, it would have obvious in view of the statement in either
Ab et al or Carrigan et al to dose according to AIBW.
(Ans. 15–16.)
Appellant contends, however, that each of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Ab
’528, and Carrigan ’675 “refer to TBW-based dosing [and,] [t]hus, one
would have no reason to move away from these explicit teachings of TBW-
based dosing of FOLR1 immunoconjugates, especially given that other
immunoconjugates in clinical trials were also being administered using
TBW-based dosing” (Appeal Br. 26; see generally Reply Br. 14–15).
Appellant further contends that given the disclosure of TBW-based dosing in
each of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Ab ’528, and Carrigan ’675
one would have no reason to turn to the limited teachings of
Green, Geraghtry, Fuchs, or Narain regarding AIBW dosing.
[Because] [n]one of these references relate to
immunoconjugates, antibody-based drugs, or ocular
toxicity. . . . Instead these references discuss AIBW dosing in
the limited context of obese patients and/or small molecule
chemotherapeutic agents.
(Appeal Br. 26 (citations omitted); see id. (Appellant contends that “none
of . . . [Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, or Narain] contain any information that
would lead one to believe that AIBW dosing would be useful for
administering an immunoconjugate”); id. at 27 (Appellant contends that
“none of the references cited by the Examiner contains even the slightest
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

17
indication that AIBW-based dosing would be useful for administering
immunoconjugates”); see generally Reply Br. 15–19.) We are not
persuaded.
There can be no doubt in this art that there is both a design need and
market pressure to identify effective cancer treatments. In addition, those of
ordinary skill in this art recognized that, prior to Appellant’s filing date, the
anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate disclosed in the art, and within the scope of
Appellant’s claimed invention, exhibited ocular toxicity (see Hearing
Transcript21 8:1–11). During the October 2, 2019 Oral Hearing Appellant’s
counsel explained, however, that the ocular toxicity problem associated with
an anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate, within the scope of Appellant’s claimed
invention, was solved by Lutz ’282 prior to the filing date of Appellant’s
claimed invention (see id. 8:13–9:1). See Riverwood-Int’l Corp. v. R.A.
Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted)
(“Valid prior art may be created by the admissions of the parties”).
Although Appellant’s counsel associated the solution to the ocular toxicity
problem with the use of a charged linker, we find that Appellant’s claim 1
does not exclude the use of an immunoconjugate that comprises a charged
linker to avoid ocular toxicity issues (see Hearing Transcript 8:13–9:1; see
also FF 6–7).
Thus, the issue before this Panel distills down to the selection of a
dosing regimen, i.e. AIBW-based dosing, from among the various dosing
regimens known to those of ordinary skill in this art.

21 Transcript of Appellant’s October 2, 2019 Oral Hearing.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

18
As Examiner explains, “[c]hemotherapeutics and immunoconjugates
are both used for the treatment of cancers” and, thus, those of ordinary skill
in this art would look to art relating to dosing to determine an appropriate
dosing regimen (see Ans. 46–47; see generally FF 5, 15, and 21). Among
the finite number of dosing regimens known in the art, AIBW is disclosed
by Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain (see FF 32–38; see generally Ans.
47).
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that
instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might
show that is was obvious under § 103.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Thus, we find no
error in Examiner’s conclusion that an administering physician looking to
determine an optimum dosage for a therapeutic agent, as disclosed in each of
Ab ’181, Ab ’528, and Carrigan ’675, would have found it prima facie
obvious to look to the AIBW dosing regimen disclosed by Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, and Narain (see Ans. 47; see also id. at 48).
Appellant directs attention to Lutz, who declares that each of Green
Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain “discuss using non-total-body-weight-based
dosing regimens solely in the context of obese patients and/or for dosing of
small molecule chemotherapeutic agents” (see Appeal Br. 27–28; see
generally Reply Br. 17; see also Lutz Decl. ¶ 32). We note, however, that
Appellant’s claim 1 does not exclude the treatment of obese patients. Thus,
we find no error in Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in
this art would have found it prima facie obvious to optimize a known dosing
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

19
regimen, i.e. AIBW, for the administration of an immunoconjugate, such as
an anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate (see Ans. 46–47).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “it could not have been predictable that AIBW dosing would
be useful at all in administering an entirely different type of therapeutic,
such as anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate,” as opposed to a small molecule
chemotherapeutic (Appeal Br. 28).
We recognize Lutz’s statement that
by 2012, the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued
guidelines that “if a dose reduction is employed in response to
toxicity, consideration should be given to the resumption of full
weight-based doses” and that there is “no evidence to support
the need for greater dose reductions for obese patients
compared with non-obese patients.”
(Lutz Decl. ¶ 32 (citing Griggs,22 Abstract).) Griggs, however, identifies
limitations associated with its disclosure and indicates that “[w]ell-designed
prospective studies with planned analysis of body composition and adverse
events would be valuable” (Griggs 1558–59). Given the limitations of
Griggs’ disclosure and Griggs’ appreciation of the need for “[w]ell-designed
prospective studies with planned analysis of body composition and adverse
events,” we are not persuaded by Appellant’s reliance on Griggs to support a
“recommended TBW-based dosing even for administering chemotherapeutic
drugs to obese patients” (Appeal Br. 29; see generally Reply Br. 17–19).
We recognize Appellant’s contentions regarding “unpredictability in
the field of dosing immunoconjugates” (Appeal Br. 30–31). We find,

22 Jennifer J. Griggs et al., Appropriate Chemotherapy Dosing for Obese
Adult Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology
Clinical Practice Guideline, 30 J. Clinical Oncology 1553–1561 (2012).
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

20
however, that the evidence, on this record, supports Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness, where the prior art teaches the use of an anti-FOLR1
immunoconjugate, within the scope of Appellant’s claimed invention, to
treat FOLR1-expressing ovarian cancer, using the art recognized AIBW-
based dosing regimen that is optimized by an administering physician (see
FF 22–38; see also Ans. 47–48).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
intimation that the lack of clinical trials “using AIBW for administration of
an immunoconjugate,” supports a conclusion of non-obviousness (Appeal
Br. 30–31 (citing Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 21–27, 29–31)). In this regard, we
note that Appellant’s claim 1 “recites a combination of elements that were
all known in the prior art, and all that was required to obtain that
combination was to substitute one well-known . . . [dosing method] for
another.” Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As discussed above, the prior art solved the ocular toxicity problem
associated with an anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate, prior to the filing date of
Appellant’s claimed invention, through the use of a charged linker (see
Hearing Transcript 8:13–9:1; see also FF 6–7). Appellant’s claim 1 does not
exclude the use of an anti-FOLR1 immunoconjugate comprising a charged
linker as was known in the art at the time of Appellant’s claimed invention
to avoid ocular toxicity. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “it was both unpredictable and surprising that changing from
TBW to AIBW dosing would eliminate Grade III ocular toxicities” (Appeal
Br. 31). To the contrary, for the reasons set forth above, we agree with
Examiner’s conclusion that Appellant’s claimed method would have been
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

21
prima facie obvious in view of the combination of (a) Lutz ’282 and Ab
’181, (b) Ab ’528, or (c) Carrigan ’675, in combination with Armstrong,
Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
To the extent that Appellant contends that the combination of prior art
relied upon by Examiner does not make obvious a method for treating a
human patient having an FOLR1-expressing ovarian cancer comprising
administering an immunoconjugate within the scope of Appellant’s claimed
invention at a dosage of 6 milligrams per kilogram of adjusted ideal body
weight (AIBW) of the patient we note that “where[, as here,] the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citation omitted); see also FF 5, 15,
and 21 (explaining that an “administering physician can easily determine
optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition rates”).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the rejections over:
(a) Lutz ’282 and Ab ’181, (b) Ab ’528, or (c) Carrigan ’675, in combination
with Armstrong.
The rejection of claims 1 and 225–354 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, and Armstrong is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 and 225–354 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675 in combination with Armstrong
is reversed.
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

22
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness, with respect to the rejection over: (a) Lutz ’282
and Ab ’181, (b) Ab ’528, or (c) Carrigan ’675, in combination with
Armstrong, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Lutz ’282, Ab ’181, Armstrong, Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims 225–354 are not separately argued
and fall with claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ab ’528 or Carrigan ’675 in combination with Armstrong, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims 225–354 are not separately
argued and fall with claim 1.

Obviousness-type Double Patenting:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness-type double patenting?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 39. Examiner finds that Ab ’275 claims methods for treating ovarian
cancers comprising the administration of immunoconjugates, within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (Ans. 17; see Ab ’275: cols. 181–
182 (claims 12–14, 16, 17, 22–27, and 29–35)).
FF 40. Ab ’275 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can easily
determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition rates” (Ab
’275 58:19–21; see id. at ll. 26–31 (“[T]he dosage of the antibody or other
FOLR1-binding agent is from about 0.1 mg to about 20 mg per kg of body
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

23
weight. The treating physician can estimate repetition rates for dosing based
on measured residence times and concentrations of the drug in bodily fluids
or tissues.”); see also Ans. 17–18).
FF 41. Examiner finds that Ab ’966 claims an immunoconjugate, within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (Ans. 20; see Ab ’966: cols. 201–
203 (claims 2–11 and 18)).
FF 42. Ab ’966 discloses that its immunoconjugate may be used in a
method of treating cancer, including ovarian cancer (Ab ’966, Abstract; see
id. at 15:24–34; Ans. 20).
FF 43. Ab ’966 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can easily
determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition rates” (Ab
’966 58:3–5; see Ans. 21).
FF 44. Examiner finds that Carrigan ’432 claims methods for treating
ovarian cancers comprising the administration of immunoconjugates, within
the scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (Ans. 23; see Carrigan ’432:
cols. 50–54 (claims 1–45)).
FF 45. Carrigan ’432 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can
easily determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition
rates” (Carrigan ’432 29:39–41; see Ans. 24).
FF 46. Examiner relies on Ab ’181 as discussed above (see FF 23–26; see
generally Ans. 24).
FF 47. Examiner finds that Ab ’280 claims methods for treating ovarian
cancers comprising the administration of immunoconjugates, within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (Ans. 29–30; see Ab ’280: cols.
200–204 (claims 18–27, 30, 33–54, 59–64, 67, 69, 70, and 73)).
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

24
FF 48. Ab ’280 discloses that “[t]he administering physician can easily
determine optimum dosages, dosing methodologies and repetition rates” (Ab
’280 60:18–20; see Ans. 31).
FF 49. Examiner finds that Ab ’490 claims methods for treating ovarian
cancers comprising the administration of immunoconjugates, within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (Ans. 34; see Ab ’280: cols. 207–
211 (claims 1–40)).
FF 50. Examiner finds that “[t]he only difference between [the claims of Ab
’275, Ab ’966, Carrigan ’432 in view of Ab ’181, Ab ’280, and Ab ’490], if
any, is determining the dose using AIBW” and relies on Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, and Narain, as discussed above, to make up for this deficiency (Ans.
17–18, 20–21, 23–24, 30–31, and 35; see also FF 32–38) (emphasis
omitted).
ANALYSIS
The rejection over the claims of (a) Ab ’275, (b) Ab ’966, (c) Carrigan ’432
in view of Ab ’181, (d) Ab ’280, and (e) Ab ’490 in view of Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain:
Based on the claims of (a) Ab ’275, (b) Ab ’966, (c) Carrigan ’432 in
view of Ab ’181, (d) Ab ’280, and (e) Ab ’490 in view of Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, and Narain, Examiner concludes that because
the patent claims the treatment of cancers (ovarian and cancer
of the peritoneum) using the same immunoconjugate as
appellant and since the patent discloses that “the administering
physician can determine the optimum dosages”, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention for a physician to
use a known dosing determination for the determination of the
dose.
(Ans. 18; see also id. at 21, 24, 31, and 35.)
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

25
Appellant contends that
even assuming, arguendo, one were to combine the claims of
the cited patents . . . with Green, Geraghtry, Fuchs and Narain,
one would still not arrive at the presently claimed specific dose
of 6 mg/kg AIBW as none of these references provide that
specific amount or any reasons to arrive at it.
(Appeal Br. 33). We are not persuaded.
The claims of the cited patents are drawn to methods of treating
cancer, such as ovarian cancer with an immunoconjugate within the scope of
Appellant’s claimed invention or immunoconjugates, within the scope of
Appellant’s claimed invention, useful in the treatment of cancer, such as
ovarian cancer (see FF 39–49). In this regard, we note that a patent
disclosure may be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in the
patent’s claim. See e.g., Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d
1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although, as Examiner recognizes, the patents
do not expressly claim AIBW-based dosing, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and
Narain suggest the use of AIBW-based dosing regimens.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the evidence on this record, as relied
upon by Examiner, sets forth the general conditions of Appellant’s claimed
invention. Where, as here, the evidence, as relied upon by Examiner sets
froth the general conditions of Appellant’s claim, “it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, we find no error in
Examiner’s rationale that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have
found it prima facie obvious to use AIBW-based dosing regimens to
administer an immunoconjugate within the scope of Appellant’s claimed
invention to a human patient to treat cancer, including ovarian cancer. In
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

26
doing so, a person of ordinary skill in this art would have determined the
appropriate dosage through routine experimentation.
For the reasons discussed above, with respect to the obviousness
rejections, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that “Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs and/or Narain . . . [do not] relate to immunoconjugates,
antibody-based drugs, or ocular toxicity,” based on Griggs, “it is unclear
whether one of ordinary skill would have even considered adjusting the
dosing method for small molecule chemotherapeutics . . . to obese
patients . . . at the time the application was filed,” or that “it was completely
unpredictable that changing from TBW to AIBW dosing would have
eliminated Grade III ocular toxicities” (Appeal Br. 33–34; see generally
Reply Br. 19–20).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness-type double patenting.
The rejection of claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’275 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims
225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and
305–354 are not separately argued and, therefore, fall with Appellant’s claim
1.
The rejection of claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’966 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims
225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

27
305–354 are not separately argued and, therefore, fall with Appellant’s claim
1.
The rejection of claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Carrigan ’432 in view of Ab ’181, Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is
affirmed. Claims 225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–
288, 292–301, and 305–354 are not separately argued and, therefore, fall
with Appellant’s claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’280 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims
225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and
305–354 are not separately argued and, therefore, fall with Appellant’s claim
1.
The rejection of claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Ab ’490 in view of Green, Geraghty, Fuchs, and Narain is affirmed. Claims
225, 226, 228–243, 245–254, 258–267, 269–277, 279–288, 292–301, and
305–354 are not separately argued and, therefore, fall with Appellant’s claim
1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 225, 226,
228, 229,
231–243,
102(a)(1)
and (a)(2)
Lutz ’282, Ab ’181  1, 225,
226, 228,
229, 231–
Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

28
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
245, 247–
254, 258,
259, 261–
267, 269,
271–277,
279, 281–
288, 292,
293, 295–
301, 306–
354
243, 245,
247–254,
258, 259,
261–267,
269, 271–
277, 279,
281–288,
292, 293,
295–301,
306–354
1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
102(a)(1) Ab ’528 1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354
1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
102(a)(1) Carrigan ’675, Ab
’181
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354
1, 225–354 103 Lutz ’282, Ab ’181,
Armstrong
1, 225–354
1, 225–354 103 Ab ’528 or Carrigan
’675, Armstrong
1, 225–354
1, 225–354 103 Lutz ’282, Ab ’181,
Armstrong, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs,
Narain
1, 225–
354

Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

29
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 225–354 103 Ab ’528 or Carrigan
’675, Armstrong,
Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, Narain
1, 225–
354

1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
Obviousness-
type double
patenting
Ab ’275 in view of
Green, Geraghty,
Fuchs, Narain
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354

1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
Obviousness-
type double
patenting
Ab ’966, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs,
Narain
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354

1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
Obviousness-
type double
patenting
Carrigan ’432, Ab
’181, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs,
Narain
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354

1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
Obviousness-
type double
patenting
Ab ’280, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs,
Narain
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–

Appeal 2018-004572
Application 14/509,809

30
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
292–301,
305–354
288, 292–
301, 305–
354
1, 225, 226,
228–243,
245–254,
258–267,
269–277,
279–288,
292–301,
305–354
Obviousness-
type double
patenting
Ab ’490, Green,
Geraghty, Fuchs,
Narain 
1, 225,
226, 228–
243, 245–
254, 258–
267, 269–
277, 279–
288, 292–
301, 305–
354

Overall
Outcome
1, 225–
354

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