Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020003819 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
14/921,898 10/23/2015 Jason Moss 2010358-0007 1706
24280 7590 05/26/2021
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP
TWO INTERNATIONAL PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02110
EXAMINER
ROGERS, JAMES WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
jnease@choate.com
patentdocket@choate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON MOSS and MACHINANI RAO
____________

Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, 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 1, 3, 4, 6–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 46–66. 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 “Molecular
Insight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” and “Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.”
(Appellant’s January 10, 2020, Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 3).
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s “disclosure provides purified forms of iobenguane and
preparations of a precursor to iobenguane, such as a polymer, the polymer
comprising a monomer of formula (I):

or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, the preparation comprising
leachable tin at a level of 0 ppm to 850 ppm” (Appellant’s Abstract).
Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 16, 46, 49, 55, 58, 61, and 64 are reproduced
below:
1. A preparation comprising a polymer, the polymer
comprising a monomer of formula (I):

or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
wherein the pharmaceutically acceptable salt is a HOAc salt;
leachable tin is present in the preparation at a level within a
range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm,
water is present in the preparation at less than 2.0 wt% water
relative to the wt% of the preparation, and
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

3
the preparation is substantially free of methanol, ethanol,
diethyl ether, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, hexane,
acetone, toluene, and acetonitrile.
(Appeal Br. 30.)
13. A kit comprising a preparation, the preparation comprising
a polymer comprising a monomer of formula (I):

or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
wherein the pharmaceutically acceptable salt is a HOAc salt;
wherein leachable tin is present in the preparation at a level
within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm, and the kit
further comprising a container that stores the polymer
comprising monomer of formula (I) under inert gas,
wherein water is present in the preparation at less than 2.0 wt%
water relative to the wt% of the preparation, and
the preparation is substantially free of methanol, ethanol,
diethyl ether, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, hexane,
acetone, toluene, and acetonitrile.
(Id. at 32.)
16. The kit of claim 13, wherein the kit comprises leachable tin
content at a level of less than 120 ppm for at least six months at
-20 °C.
(Id.)
46. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tin is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
1 month.
(Id. at 34.)
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

4
49. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tin is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
3 months.
(Id. at 34–35.)
55. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tin is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
9 months.
(Id. at 35.)
58. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tine is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
1 year.
(Id. at 35–36.)
61. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tin is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
2 years.
(Id. at 36.)
64. The preparation of claim 1, wherein leachable tin is at a
level within a range of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 °C under inert gas for at least
3 years.
(Id.)
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

5
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 46–66 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hunter ’730,2
Paulekuhn,3 and Chrétien.4
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Hunter ’730 “relates to the preparation of a radiopharmaceutical”
and “[i]n particular, . . . to a process for the preparation [of] a radiolabeled
haloaromatic, as well as intermediate precursor compounds used in the
process” (Hunter ’730 ¶ 1; see generally Non-Final Act.5 4–5).
FF 2. Hunter ’730 discloses the preparation of a polymer that comprises a
monomer of the following formula:

(Hunter ’730 ¶ 84.)

2 Hunter et al., US 2003/0012730 A1, published Jan. 16, 2003.
3 G. Steffen Paulekuhn et al., Trends in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
Salt Selection based on Analysis of the Orange Book Database, 50 J. MED.
CHEM. 6665–72 (2007).
4 Jean-Mathieu Chrétien et al., New Trends in the Synthesis of Solid-
Supported Organotin Reagents and Interest of their Use in Organic
Synthesis in a Concept of Green Chemistry, Tin Chemistry Fundamentals,
Frontiers, and Applications 607–21 (Alwyn G. Davies, et al., eds., John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2008)).
5 Examiner’s October 12, 2018, Non-Final Office Action.
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

6
FF 3. Hunter ’730 discloses that it synthesized Polymer 3 in the presence
of the inert gas, argon, washed the resulting Polymer 3 preparation “with
acetonitrile . . ., methanol . . . and acetonitrile . . .,” and thereafter vacuum
dried the preparation at room temperature overnight (Hunter ’730 ¶ 85; see
Non-Final Act. 5).
FF 4. Hunter ’730 discloses that its processes are “suitable for ‘kit’
formulation” (Hunter ’730 ¶ 7; see also Non-Final Act. 6 (Examiner finds
that Hunter ’730’s synthesized Polymer 3 in the presence of the inert gas,
argon, and vacuumed dried the preparation in a container); see generally
Hunter ’730).
FF 5. Examiner finds that Hunter ’730’s Polymer 3 is in the form of a
hydrochloric acid salt and is silent with respect to an acetate salt (HOAc)
form (Non-Final Act. 6).
FF 6. Paulekuhn, which published after Hunter ’730, discloses that
although “[c]hloride ions continue to be the most frequently utilized anionic
counterions for the formation of salts as active pharmaceutical ingredients
[a] . . . strong trend toward a wider variety of counterions over the past
decade is observed” (Paulekuhn, Abstract, see Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing
Paulekuhn 6667: Table 2, Figs. 2–3) (Examiner finds that Paulekuhn
discloses that “chloride ion and HOAc were two well-known
pharmaceutically acceptable salts available to one of ordinary skill before
the time of . . . [Appellant’s] claimed invention”); see also Paulekuhn 6670
(Paulekuhn discloses that “during the . . . periods 1997-2001 and 2002-2006
the relative fraction of [acetate salts] increased to 14.3% and 16.7%,”
respectively)).
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

7
FF 7. Examiner finds that the combination of Hunter ’730 and Paulekuhn
fails to disclose the tin levels recited in Appellant’s claimed invention (see
Non-Final Act. 7).
FF 8. Chrétien, which published after Hunter ’730, discloses “[n]ew
[t]rends in the [s]ynthesis of [s]olid-[s]uported [o]rganotin [r]eagents and
[i]nterest of their [u]se in [o]rganic [s]ynthesis in a [c]oncept of [g]reen
[c]hemistry” (Chrétien § 5.5; see generally Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Chrétien
607)).
FF 9. Chrétien discloses the “[r]emoval of [t]in [r]esidues by [p]artition
between [t]wo [p]hases . . ., which can reduce tin contamination levels to
<10 ppm in favorable cases” and, “[i]n a related area, triarylphosphonium-
supported tin reagents were very recently used for Stille cross-coupling
reactions, dehalogenation reactions, cyclization reactions, and allylation
reactions affording the desired products with very low tin pollution (5–15
ppm)” (Chrétien § 5.5.2 (endnotes omitted); see generally Non-Final Act. 7
(citing Chrétien 607–17) (Examiner finds that Chrétien discloses the toxicity
associated with residual tin present in organotin reagents, the difficulty of
removing tine residues from reaction products, and reviews numerous
known techniques for purifying organotin reagents)).
FF 10. Chrétien discloses “that gentle mechanical shaking (rather than
stirring with magnetic stirrer) and mild reaction temperature are required to
minimize damage to the polymer and consequent release of tin impurities
into solution” (Chrétien § 5.5.5; see Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Chrétien 617–
18)).
FF 11. Moss declares that the polymer set forth in Experiment 8 of
Appellant’s Specification was prepared according to the methods disclosed
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

8
in Hunter ’9106 with the exception that “after the final washing steps
described by Hunter [’910], an anion exchange purification step was
performed to convert the hydrochloride salt form into an acetate salt form,”
which “was then washed with 95% (v/v) aqueous ethanol and vacuum dried
at room temperature as summarized in the Table . . . found at paragraph
[00176] of Example 18” of Appellant’s Specification (Second Moss Decl.7
¶ 9 (alteration original)).
FF 12. Moss declares that Example 9 of Appellant’s Specification “has
lower levels of water and relevant organic solvents, thanks to the
replacement of the final aqueous ethanol washes and vacuum desiccator
drying, with anhydrous ethanol washes and a 3 stage drying sequence in a
vacuum oven” (Second Moss Decl. ¶ 11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 176–178)); see also
Second Moss Decl. ¶ 12 (Moss declares that “[t]he washing and drying
sequence used to prepare the polymer sample of Example 9 removes residual
water (so that water content is below 2.0 wt% of the preparation) and
organic solvents,” therefore, “[t]he preparation thus achieved displays more
uniform polymer product and less leachable tin, even as compared with that
of Example 8 (and thus certainly as compared with Hunter [’910]”); Second
Moss Decl. ¶¶ 4, 12 (Moss declares that “the washing and drying steps
described in Examples 1–6” were used to prepare the sample disclosed in
Example 9 of Appellant’s Specification and are “summarized in the Table at

6 Hunter et al., US 7,658,910, issued Feb. 9, 2010. Office records indicate
that Hunter ’910 is a continuation of Hunter ’730 and, therefore, is expected
to contain the same disclosure.
7 Second Declaration of Jason Moss, signed Oct. 13, 2018.
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

9
paragraph [00176] of Example 18” of Appellant’s Specification (alteration
original))).
FF 13. Moss declares that Example 18 of Appellant’s Specification, “and
particularly the table included in paragraph [00176] of that Example
accurately documents differences between the method used to prepare the
sample analyzed in Example 8 and that used to prepare the sample analyzed
in Example 9” of Appellant’s Specification (Second Moss Decl. ¶ 4
(alteration original); see also First Moss Decl. ¶ 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 113,
153–155) (describing the methods used to obtain the polymer analyzed in
Example 9 of Appellant’s Specification)).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Hunter ’730, Paulekuhn, and Chrétien,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it
would have been prima facie obvious to those of ordinary skill in this art to
formulate Hunter ’730’s polymer 3 as an HOAc salt through the use of
“routine optimization” of known salts (see Non-Final Act. 6–7; see also
Ans.8 4 (Examiner finds “no disclosed advantage in selecting either salt over
the other”)). We find no error in Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness on
this record, wherein the relevant field, at the time of Appellant’s claimed
invention, recognized a “strong trend toward a wider variety of counterions”
(FF 6; see also FF 1–5). See Pfizer, Inc. v Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[O]ptimization of the acid addition salt formulation for an
active pharmaceutical ingredient would have been obvious where[,] as
here[,] the acid addition salt formulation has no effect on the therapeutic

8 Examiner’s February 28, 2020, Answer.
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

10
effectiveness of the active ingredient and the prior art heavily suggests the
particular anion used to form the salt”).
Examiner further finds that, at the time Appellant’s invention was
made, it would have been prima facie obvious to those of ordinary skill in
this art to modify Hunter ’730 according to the “new trends” disclosed by
Chrétien, such as Chrétien’s disclosed process of reducing the amount of
residual tin in preparations, such as the Polymer 3 preparation made obvious
by the combination of Hunter ’730, Paulekuhn, and Chrétien, to levels
within the scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (see Non-Final Act. 7–8;
see FF 1–10). Given the recognition in this art of the need to reduce the
toxicity of organotin reagents by removing residual tin from organotin
preparations (see FF 9), we find no error in Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been prima facie obvious to those of ordinary skill in this art to
utilize the processes disclosed by Chrétien to reduce residual tin in the
Polymer 3, organotin, preparation made obvious by the combination of
Hunter ’730, Paulekuhn, and Chrétien.
In addition, because Hunter ’730 suggests the preparation of kit
formulations and utilizes an inert gas in the Polymer 3 preparation’s
synthesis, we find no error in Examiner’s conclusion that at the time of
Appellant’s claimed invention it would have been prima facie obvious to
those of ordinary skill in this art to prepare a kit formulation, wherein the
resulting purified and dried Polymer 3 preparation is placed in a container in
the presence of an inert gas, such as argon (see Non-Final Act. 6; see FF 1–
10).

Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

11
Claim 1:
Acetate Salt:
Moss declares that the wash steps summarized in the table at
paragraph 176 of Appellant’s Specification “removes residual water (so that
water content is below 2.0 wt% of the preparation) and organic solvents,”
(FF 12–13). Although Moss notes that “acetate salt is less hygroscopic than
the hydrochloride salt,” Moss does not correlate this difference in
hygroscopicity with the amount of residual water in the final polymer
preparation (see Second Moss Decl. ¶ 10; cf. FF 12–13). Appellant also fails
to direct our attention to an evidentiary basis on this record to support
Appellant’s contention that “[t]he acetate salt form has numerous
unexpected benefits over the hydrochloric acid salt form, including the
discovery by the Appellant that the hygroscopicity of the hydrochloride salt
form leads to increased amounts of residual water in the preparation” (Reply
Br. 6–7; see also Appeal Br. 15 (citing Second Moss Decl. ¶ 12) (Appellant
contends that it “discovered that the hygroscopicity of the hydrochloride salt
form leads to increased amounts of residual water in the preparation”)).
“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.” In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contention.
Although Moss notes that an acetate salt “avoids potential interference
by chloride ions in the later radiolabeling reaction that is performed on the
polymer to generate the radiolabeled drug substance” (Second Moss Decl.
¶ 10), Moss does not identify this observation as unexpected to those of
ordinary skill in this art, particularly in view of the evidence on this record,
which recognizes that, at the time of Appellant’s claimed invention,
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

12
although “[c]hloride ions continue to be the most frequently utilized anionic
counterions for the formation of salts as active pharmaceutical ingredients”
there is a “strong trend toward a wider variety of counterions over the past
decade” (FF 6). Absent evidence to the contrary, which we find none, we
agree with Examiner’s conclusion that those of ordinary skill in this art
would have determined the appropriate salt formulation through routine
experimentation (see Non-Final Act. 6–7). See also Pfizer, Inc. v Apotex,
Inc., 480 F.3d at 1368.
Appellant’s contentions regarding a “later radiolabeling reaction” to
generate a radiolabeled drug substance, relates to the preparation of an active
compound, particularly when those of ordinary skill in this art would have
appreciated that certain salt forms may interfere with later radiolabeling
reactions to generate a radiolabeled drug substance (see Reply Br. 7; Appeal
Br. 15–16; see also FF 6; Second Moss Decl. ¶ 10). Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “Examiner’s reliance on Pfizer and
Paulekuhn . . . is misplaced,” because “Pfizer is related to compounds that
are active compounds, whereas the presently claimed preparations are
intermediates” (Reply Br. 7; see also id. at 7–8).
Further, Hunter ’730 “relates to the preparation of a
radiopharmaceutical” and, thus, those of ordinary skill in this art would have
looked to optimize the salt form of the preparation, including intermediates
leading to a final radiopharmaceutical product (see FF 1; cf. FF 6).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “a person of
skill in the art is not seeking to improve the bioavailability of a polymer
intermediate” and Examiner “has not proffered any motivation to seek out
additional salt forms of a polymer preparation, based on the cited
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

13
references . . ., especially in view of Paulekuhn” (Reply Br. 7–8; cf. Appeal
Br. 15–16).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “the acetate [salt] would have unexpected benefits as
compared to the hydrochloric acid salt” (Reply Br. 6). We do, however,
agree with “Appellant’s position that while the salts could be prepared, a
person of skill in the art would expect them to be equivalent” (id.; see also
id. at 6–7; cf. Appeal Br. 16–17). In this regard, we note that the evidence
presented in Examples 8, 9, and 18 of Appellant’s Specification, and the
Moss Declarations, establish that it is the purification method, i.e. wash
steps, rather than the form of salt that results in a preparation that contains
“reduced amounts of leachable tin, less water, and less organic solvent” in
the final polymer preparation (Reply Br. 8; see, e.g., FF 11–13).

Leachable Tin, Water, and Organic Solvents:
We acknowledge Appellant’s reliance on Examples 8 and 9 of the
Specification and the Moss Declarations to establish that the method they
used to prepare the acetate form of the claimed polymer preparation results
in “multiple benefits to the polymer preparation, including reduced amounts
of leachable tin, reduced residual water, and reduced amounts of organic
solvent, as compared to previous preparations” (Reply Br. 9–10; Appeal Br.
19–20). Appellant’s claim 1, however, does not limit the method used to
produce the polymer preparation (see Appeal Br. 30).
The evidence on this record establishes that, subsequent to the
publication of Hunter ’730, Chrétien disclosed novel methods for preparing
organotin reagents, including methods of reducing the amount of tin
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

14
contamination, in an organotin compound preparation, to levels within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (see FF 8–10). Examiner expressly
relies on Chrétien’s purification methods (see id.). Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “Examiner has identified no
specific teaching or suggestion from [Chrétien] that would lead a person of
skill in the art to the claimed preparations starting from Hunter” in
combination with Paulekuhn (Appeal Br. 22). To the contrary, we find that
the preponderance of evidence on this record supports Examiner’s
conclusion that, at the time of Appellant’s claimed invention, it would have
been prima facie obvious to use Chrétien’s purification methods to reduce
tin contamination in the organotin preparation, made obvious by the
combination of Hunter ’730, Paulekuhn, and Chrétien, to levels within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention (see Non-Final Act. 7–8; see FF 1–
10).
We find no evidence on this record to support a conclusion that the
organotin preparation made obvious by the combination of Hunter ’730,
Paulekuhn, and Chrétien would not comprise less than 2.0 wt% water
relative to the wt% of the preparation or be substantially free of methanol,
ethanol, diethyl ether, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, hexane, acetone,
toluene, and acetonitrile, as required by Appellant’s claim 1 (see Appeal Br.
30; FF 1–10; cf. Appeal Br. 22–23 (Addressing the wash steps disclosed in
Hunter ’730); Reply Br. 9–11).
In addition, because Appellant’s claim 1 does not limit the method in
which the organotin preparation is made, we find that Appellant’s
declaratory evidence, which addresses one specific preparative method, is
not commensurate in scope with Appellant’s claimed invention (see First
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

15
Moss Decl. ¶¶ 2–4; Second Moss Decl. ¶¶ 3–12; cf. Appeal Br. 30). In re
Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (In order to be
persuasive of non-obviousness, “[e]vidence of secondary considerations
must be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.”).
In view of the foregoing, and with consideration of both Moss
Declarations, we find that the totality of the evidence on this record weighs
in favor of Examiner. Specifically, we find that the preponderance of
evidence on this record supports a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill
in this art, with knowledge of the adverse effect of residual, i.e. leachable,
tin contamination present in organotin preparations, would look to new
methods, such as those disclosed by Chrétien, of reducing tin contamination
in organotin preparations (see FF 8–10). For the foregoing reasons, we find
that, on this record, the weight of Appellant’s secondary considerations are
of insufficient weight to override a determination of obviousness based on
primary considerations. Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 719
(Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d
1476 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Evidence of secondary considerations . . . are
but a part of the ‘totality of the evidence’ that is used to reach the ultimate
conclusion of obviousness.”); Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenny Mfg. Co.,
864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Although [secondary evidence] must
be considered, [it] do[es] not control the obviousness conclusion.”).

Claims 16, 46, 49, 55, 58, 61, and 64:
Claims 16, 46, 49, 55, 58, 61, and 64 are reproduced above.
Appellant’s claim 16 depends from and further limits the leachable tin
content in the kit, of Appellant’s claim 13, to a level of less than 120 ppm
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

16
for at least six months at -20 ºC. Appellant’s claims 46, 49, 55, 58, 61, and
64 depend from and further limit the leachable tin content in the preparation,
of Appellant’s claim 1, to a level of about 0 ppm to about 120 ppm after the
preparation has been stored at -20 ºC under inert gas for at least 1 month, at
least 3 months, at least 9 months, at least 1 year, at least 2 years, and at least
3 years, respectively.
As discussed above, the preponderance of evidence on this record
supports Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Hunter ’730,
Paulekuhn, and Chrétien makes obvious a preparation and kit within the
scope of Appellant’s claims 1 and 13, respectively. Thus, because the
preparation and kit, set forth is Appellant’s claimed invention is the same as
the preparation and kit made obvious by the combination of Hunter ’730,
Paulekuhn, and Chrétien a person of ordinary skill in this art would have
expected them to have the same properties. At best, Appellant recognized
“another advantage which would flow naturally from following the
suggestion of the prior art,” which “cannot be the basis for patentability
when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227
USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions regarding the amount of leachable tin after storage for the time
periods and conditions required by Appellant’s claims 16, 46, 49, 55, 58, 61,
and 64 (Appeal Br. 24–29).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 16, 46, 49, 55, 58, 61,
and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Appeal 2020-003819
Application 14/921,898

17
Hunter ’730, Paulekuhn, and Chrétien is affirmed. Claims 3, 4, 6–13, 15,
16, 18, 19 are not separately argued and fall with claim 1. Claims 52–54 are
not separately argued and fall with claim 16. Claims 47 and 48 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 46. Claims 50 and 51 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 49. Claims 56 and 57 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 55. Claims 59 and 60 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 58. Claims 62 and 63 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 61. Claims 65 and 66 are not
separately argued and fall with claim 64.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–13,
15, 16, 18,
19, 46–66
103 Hunter ’730,
Paulekuhn,
Chrétien
1, 3, 4, 6–
13, 15, 16,
18, 19,
46–66

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