throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`
` Entered: September 7, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COTTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`L’Oréal USA, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “L’Oréal”) filed a petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1‒7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,645,513 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’513 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The
`University of Massachusetts (“Patent Owner” or “UMass”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 8 (Prelim. Resp.).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108. Upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary
`Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to show that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`challenged claims.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following district court
`proceeding as relating to the ’513 patent: University of Massachusetts
`Medical School and Carmel Laboratories, LLC v. L’Oréal S.A. and L’Oréal
`USA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00868 (D. Del.). Pet. 3–4; Paper 5, 2. Petitioner and
`Patent Owner identify the following inter partes review proceeding as
`related to the ’513 patent: IPR2018-00778, which challenges the
`patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,423,327 (“the ’327 patent”). Id. The ’327
`patent is the parent of the ’513 patent. Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`B.
`
`The ’513 Patent (Ex. 1002)
`The ’513 patent issued Nov. 11, 2003, identifying James G. Dobson,
`Jr. and Michael F. Ethier as co-inventors. Ex. 1002. The patent discloses
`“methods and compositions for enhancing the condition of skin.” Id. at
`1:45–46.
`
`The ’513 patent teaches that “[s]kin includes a surface layer, known as
`the epidermis, and a deeper connective tissue layer, known as the dermis.”
`Id. at 1:25–26. “The dermis is composed of a variety of cell types, including
`fibroblasts.” Id. at 1:29–30. “As skin ages, or is exposed to UV light and
`other environmental insults, changes in the underlying dermis can lead to the
`functional and morphological changes associated with damaged skin.” Id. at
`1:32–36. According to the ’513 patent, “[d]ecreases in the abundance and
`function of products of the fibroblasts, which include collagen and
`proteoglycans, are believed to play major roles in wrinkled and damaged
`skin.” Id. at 1:36–39.
`
`The ’513 patent discloses that the inventors “discovered that
`adenosine stimulates DNA synthesis, increases protein synthesis, and
`increases cell size in cultures of human skin fibroblasts.” Id. at 1:42–44.
`Based on this discovery, the inventors provide methods for “enhancing the
`condition of non-diseased skin” which comprise “topically administering a
`therapeutically effective amount of adenosine or an adenosine analog to a
`region of non-diseased skin of the mammal containing dermal cell.” Id. at
`1:45–65. The methods require that “[t]he adenosine is added so that it does
`not cause proliferation of the dermal cell.” Id. at 64–65. “The
`therapeutically effective amount of adenosine used in [these] methods is
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`preferably 10-3 M to 10-7 M, more preferably 10-3 M to 10-6 M, and most
`preferably about 10-4 M.” Id. at 2:20–24.
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒7 and 9 of the ’513 patent. Claim 1,
`the only independent claim, is reproduced below:
`
`A method for enhancing the condition of unbroken skin of
`1.
`a mammal by reducing one or more of wrinkling, roughness,
`dryness, or laxity of the skin, without increasing dermal cell
`proliferation, the method comprising topically applying to the
`skin a composition comprising a concentration of adenosine in
`an amount effective to enhance the condition of the skin without
`increasing dermal cell proliferation, wherein the adenosine
`concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.
`Ex. 1001, 10:17‒27.
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1‒7 and 9 of the ’513
`patent on the following grounds (Pet. 6):
`Ground References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`§ 102(b) 1–7, and 9
`§ 103(a) 4
`§ 103(a) 1‒7 and 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`JP ’1531
`JP ’153
`JP ’153 and DE ’1072
`
`
`
`1 Murayama, JP H9-157153 A, published June 17, 1997 (“JP ’153”). JP
`’153 was originally published in Japanese. Ex, 1005. All citations herein
`are to Exhibit 1006, the English translation of JP ’153 provided by the
`Petitioner.
`2 Schönrock et al., DE 195 45 107 A1, published June 5, 1997 (“DE ’107”).
`DE ’107 was originally published in German. Ex. 1003. All citations herein
`are to Exhibit 1004, the English translation of DE ’107 provided by the
`Petitioner.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`
`Petitioner submits the Declarations of Dr. R. Randall Wickett
`(Ex. 1010) and Dr. S. Jamal Mustafa (Ex. 1011) in support of institution of
`inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
` ANALYSIS
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the
`various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in
`the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of
`the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively
`working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct.
`Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.).
`Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill “would have a
`Bachelor[‘s] degree in Biochemistry or Chemistry with some academic
`exposure to, or industry courses or research in, topical delivery of drugs or
`cosmetic ingredients.” Pet. 13. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent
`Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes
`of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s definition, which is supported by Dr.
`Wickett’s declaration (Ex. 1010, ¶ 28) and is consistent with the level of
`skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the
`appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).
`Moreover, we have reviewed the credentials for Drs. Wickett and
`Mustafa (Exs. 1010 and 1011) and, at this stage in the proceeding, we
`consider Drs. Wickett and Mustafa to be qualified to provide opinions on the
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`requisite level of skill and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention.
`B. Claim Construction
`On April 19, 2018, Patent Owner filed a motion under 37 C.F.R.
` § 42.100(b) requesting that the Board apply a district court-type claim
`construction like that provided in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) in this proceeding. Paper 6. We granted Patent
`Owner’s request in an order entered June 21, 2018. Accordingly, in this
`proceeding, we will give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning,
`as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
`the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and
`the prosecution history of record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. We also
`consider the extrinsic evidence presented by Petitioner. Id. at 1317.
`We construe claim terms only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For purposes of this decision, we need only
`construe the limitation in claim 1 requiring “topically applying to the skin a
`composition comprising a concentration of adenosine” and the limitation
`requiring “wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is
`10-3 M to 10-7 M.” Ex. 1002, 10:17–26.
`
`i. Construction of: “topically applying to the skin a composition
`comprising a concentration of adenosine”
`Claim 1 of the ’513 patent requires “topical” application of a
`composition containing adenosine to “unbroken skin.” Petitioner contends
`that “topical” application of a composition containing adenosine to
`“unbroken skin” requires that “a composition be applied directly to the
`outer, epidermal layer of the skin that is intact and does not have any
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`damage, such as wounds or cuts, burns, etc., such that the inner, dermal layer
`of the skin is not exposed.” Pet. 16.
`Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Moreover, Petitioner’s construction is in accord with the plain meaning of
`the terms “topical” and “unbroken.” See, Pet. 16–17 (arguing that the person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “topical” to mean “applied
`to the exterior surface of the target” and “unbroken,” with regard to skin, to
`mean “free from any cuts, wounds, burns, or other damage that would
`expose the inner layers of the skin.”). It is also consistent with the
`Specification and the prosecution history. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 5:16–36
`(distinguishing topical administration from “oral, subdermal, intradermal, or
`intravenous” administration); Ex. 1009, 67 (arguing that the claimed method
`was distinguishable over a prior art reference because the reference involved
`application of adenosine to “open wounds such as burns”). Accordingly, for
`purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the
`phrase “topically applying to the skin a composition comprising a
`concentration of adenosine.”
`ii. Construction of: “wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the
`dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.”
`Claim 1 of the ’513 patent requires that “the adenosine concentration
`applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” Petitioner proposes that this
`language should be construed to require “the concentration of adenosine in
`the composition that is topically applied to the unbroken, outer epidermal
`layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal cells” to be from 10-3 M
`to 10-7 M. Pet. 20. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is contrary to the ordinary meaning of “dermal” and proposes
`that the claim language “be construed to mean what it says – that the recited
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`concentration is the concentration that is applied to the dermal cells.”
`Prelim. Resp. 12. We find that Patent Owner has the better position.
`There is no dispute that the skin is comprised of multiple layers. Pet.
`8; Ex. 1010 ¶ 31; Prelim. Resp. 13, n. 2. As the ‘513 patent explains, “[s]kin
`includes a surface layer, known as the epidermis, and a deeper connective
`tissue layer, known as the dermis.” Ex. 1002, 1:25–26. The multiple layers
`of skin are illustrated in the below figure.
`
`The above figure was provided by the Patent Owner and was reproduced
`from the website of the American Academy of Dermatology Association.
`Prelim. Resp. 13, n. 2. It depicts the three separate layers of the skin: the
`epidermis (the top layer), the dermis (the second layer), and subcutaneous fat
`(the bottom layer). Id.
`The fundamental question presented by Petitioner in connection with
`its proposed construction is whether the recited concentration is applied to
`the dermal cells or to the epidermal cells.3 The claim language at issue
`supplies a clear answer. As discussed above, claim 1 recites that the
`concentration of adenosine is “applied to the dermal cells.”
`This construction gives different meanings to the claim terms “the
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not identify, and we do not discern in the current record,
`evidence to suggest that there is a meaningful difference between the “outer
`epidermal layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal cells” recited in
`Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, and the epidermis. See, Ex. 1010,
`¶ 31 (“Skin is comprised of many layers, including an outer, epidermal
`layer, which covers multiple inner layers (including the dermal layers)”).
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`skin” and “the dermal cells,” and is thus consistent with the cannon that
`“[d]ifferent claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. Of
`Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). In contrast, we do not discern any meaningful difference
`between an “epidermal layer of the skin that is intact,” which is the
`construction we have adopted for “applying to the skin,” and an “epidermal
`layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal cells,” which is the
`construction Petitioner proposes for adenosine “applied to the dermal cells.”
`One would expect that if the Patent Owner had intended both “applications”
`recited in the claim 1 to be made to the same cells, Patent Owner would have
`used the same term to describe both applications.
`Construing the phrase “concentration applied to the dermal cells” to
`require what it says – i.e., application to the dermal cells – is consistent with
`the disclosure provided in the Specification. In order for a concentration of
`topically applied adenosine to be “applied to the dermal cells,” it must
`penetrate the epidermis. The Specification expressly contemplates that
`adenosine will penetrate the skin. See e.g., Ex. 1002, 5:20–23 (“For topical
`application, the penetration of the adenosine into skin tissue may be
`enhanced by a variety of methods known to those of ordinary skill in the
`art.”). The Specification also provides examples in which a concentration of
`adenosine within the range recited in the claims (10-4 M) is applied directly
`to dermal cells (fibroblasts). Id. at 9:7–51. This suggests that the inventors
`contemplated dermal cells receiving the recited concentration of adenosine.
`Petitioner argues that “the only disclosure in the ’513 patent where
`adenosine is ‘applied to dermal cells’ is associated with ex vivo methods
`(direct application to dermal fibroblasts in cell cultures), and not in vivo
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`methods (topical application to human skin) as required by claim 1.” Pet.
`20. Petitioner further argues that “topical application of adenosine is
`described in the ’513 specification with respect to application of [a]
`composition containing adenosine to a region of the epidermal layer of the
`skin containing dermal cells.” Id. at 21. Petitioner contends that these
`disclosures of in vivo topical application contrast with the Specification’s
`disclosure of “ex vivo application of adenosine directly to dermal cells
`(fibroblasts) in a culture medium in a laboratory—i.e. not relating to topical
`application to the skin.” Id. at 22.
`The disclosures identified by Petitioner provide little guidance with
`respect to the fundamental question posed in connection with Petitioner’s
`proposed construction: is the recited concentration applied to the dermal
`cells or to the epidermal cells? We acknowledge that the Specification
`describes methods where adenosine is topically applied to the epidermis and
`where adenosine is applied ex vivo directly to dermal cells. However, as
`discussed supra, the Specification expressly contemplates that adenosine
`will penetrate the skin. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:13–14. Accordingly, these
`disclosures do not speak to whether the concentration recited in the claims
`represents the concentration of adenosine at the time it is applied to the
`epidermis, or whether it instead represents the concentration of adenosine
`after it has penetrated to the dermis.
`We acknowledge that the prosecution history of the parent application
`provides some support for Petitioner’s proposed construction. In particular,
`during prosecution, the Patent Owner compared prior art concentrations of
`adenosine that were recited as a percentage of the total weight of the
`composition to the concentration recited in the claims as being “applied to
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`dermal cells.” For example, Patent Owner stated that the low end of the
`range recited in DE ’107 (0.001% wt) “corresponds to 3.88 x 10-5
`adenosine” which is “between the 10-4M and 10-5M concentration recited in
`the claims.” Ex. 1009, 84.4
`While this statement, and related arguments, provides some support
`for Petitioner’s proposed construction, we do not find them sufficient to
`overcome the plain and unambiguous language of the claims. Phillips, 415
`
`4 On August 28, 2018, after Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response, the
`parties contacted the Board by email. Ex. 3001. In the correspondence
`provided to the Board, Petitioner asserted that Patent Owner failed to “bring
`to the Board’s attention positions that were argued by Patent Owner in
`continuation applications claiming priority to the ‘327 and ‘513 patents,
`which are contrary to the positions Patent Owner now takes in the POPRs.”
`Id. at 4. Petitioner asserted that during prosecution of U.S. Patent
`Application No. 10/680,370 (“the ’370 application”), which includes a
`limitation like that at issue here, Patent Owner “argued that the
`concentration of ATP in a prior art composition (the ‘649 patent) was
`outside the claimed concentration range of adenosine analog ‘applied to the
`dermal cells.’” Id. Petitioner contends that this position “is contrary to
`Patent Owner’s position in the POPRs that the claimed concentration is the
`concentration that reaches the dermal cells.” Id. Petitioner sought leave to
`file a Reply to address this issue. Id. at 1. We denied Petitioner’s request.
`Id. The Petition expressly anticipated that Patent Owner would make the
`argument that Petitioner now seeks to address. See Pet. 26 (“Thus, the
`applicant may take the position in this proceeding that the language ‘the
`adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M’
`refers to the concentration of adenosine that ultimately reaches the dermal
`cells, after topical application to the unbroken epidermal layer of the skin.”).
`Accordingly, Petitioner should have addressed this issue in their
`Petition. Moreover, the arguments made by Patent Owner in connection
`with the ’370 application are substantially similar to those it made – and
`disclosed to the Board – in connection with prosecution of the application
`discussed herein. See, Ex. 1009, 84; Prelim Resp. 18–19. As such, we
`consider the arguments based the ‘370 application to be cumulative to
`arguments already of record.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`F.3d at 1312 (noting that “[i]t is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the
`claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the
`right to exclude’” and that it would be “unjust to the public, as well as an
`evasion of the law, to construe [a claim] in a manner different from the plain
`import of its terms.”). More particularly, we do not find in Patent Owner’s
`prosecution arguments an attempt to redefine the term “dermal cells” or to
`disavow claim scope. See, Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment
`America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this regard, we note
`that the Patent Owner expressly corrected the Examiner when the Examiner
`stated in the reasons for allowance that the claims were directed to
`“administering adenosine at a concentration of 10-4 M to 10-7 M, to the
`skin,” stating “applicant notes that the claimed concentration of adenosine is
`applied to the dermal cells.” Ex. 1009, 117 (reasons for allowance) and 123
`(Patent Owner’s comments on reasons for allowance).
`Petitioner argues that when adenosine is topically applied (as required
`by claim 1), it is not possible to determine the amount of adenosine that
`would ultimately reach the dermal cells after penetrating the epidermal layer
`of the skin.5 See, Ex. 1010, ¶ 34 (declaration of Dr. Wickett, opining that, in
`1998, the skilled artisan would have understood that “it was not possible to
`calculate with any reasonable certainty an amount of adenosine that reaches
`the dermal cells when topically applied in view of the numerous variables
`that would need to be identified and factored into any such calculation.”).
`Ex. 1010, ¶ 34. Thus, according to Petitioner, the “only way the claimed
`
`
`5 Dr. Mustafa opines, “at least some of any concentration of adenosine that is
`topically applied to the epidermis will be metabolized by epidermal cells and
`not reach the dermal layer.” Ex. 1011, ¶ 15.
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`concentration would make sense (i.e., be capable of being determined) is [if]
`the claimed concentration of adenosine is the amount in the composition that
`is topically applied, and not the amount that reaches the dermal cells.” Id.
` ¶ 35. In addition, Petitioner argues that construing the recited concentration
`to mean the amount applied to the dermal cells would render the claims
`invalid for failing to provide adequate written description. Pet. 26–27.
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that it would not have
`been possible to determine the amount of adenosine that would penetrate the
`epidermis. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Exhibit 2002, a published patent
`application assigned to L’Oréal, as evidence of a skin construct that could
`have been used to “assess impact on the dermal layer when a compound is
`applied topically to the epidermis”). Patent Owner also disputes Petitioner’s
`contention that the Specification fails to support its proposed construction.
`Prelim. Resp. 22; see also id. at 16 (asserting that “the patent identifies the
`proper concentration at the dermal layer and verifies it using ex vivo testing
`of dermal cells, and it explains that application of that concentration at the
`dermal layer can be achieved by applying a compound topically in a way
`where the proper concentration of adenosine penetrates to the dermal
`layer”).
`We need not resolve these disputes because, even if we credit
`Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner’s proposed construction renders the
`claimed process inoperable and/or invalid for lack of written description
`support, the language of the claims is unambiguous. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1327 (“the maxim that claims should be construed to preserve their validity.
`. . [has been] limited . . . to cases in which ‘the court concludes, after
`applying all the available tools of claim construction, that the claim is still
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`ambiguous’”). Where the claim language is unambiguous, the Federal
`Circuit has rejected arguments, like those presented by Petitioner, that
`construing the claim as written would render the claim invalid and/or
`produce a nonsensical result. See, Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb–Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (listing cases and stating: “[t]his court
`. . . repeatedly and consistently has recognized that courts may not redraft
`claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity”). In Chef
`America, the court declined to construe a claim that required “heating . . .
`dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F . . . as if it
`read ‘heating the ... dough at a temperature in the range of’” 400° F. to
`850° F, even though heating the dough “to” the claimed temperature would
`burn the dough to a crisp. Id. at 1373 (emphasis added). The Federal
`Circuit explained “we have repeatedly declined to rewrite unambiguous
`patent claim language” so that it can “perform the function the patentees
`intended.” Id. at 1375.
`Here, as in Chef America, the disputed claim language is
`unambiguous. It requires an adenosine concentration “applied to the dermal
`cells.” Although “a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically
`define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning,” Process Control
`Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.Cir.1999), as
`discussed above, we discern nothing in the Specification or the prosecution
`history that suggests the Patent Owner defined “dermal cells” to mean
`anything other than “dermal cells.” Accordingly, we construe the
`“concentration applied to the dermal cells” to mean what it says – that the
`recited concentration is the concentration that is applied to the dermal cells.
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`C. Ground 1: Anticipation by JP ’153
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1‒7 and 9 were anticipated by JP ’153.
`Pet. 30‒49. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claims 1–7 and 9 were anticipated by JP ’153.
`i. Asserted Prior Art
`
`JP ’153
`
`JP ’153 discloses the use of topical skin compositions in order to
`prevent signs of ageing, including wrinkles. Ex. 1006, ¶ 15. More
`specifically, JP ’153 discloses that “adenosine and derivatives thereof, and
`hamamelitannin, an extract of two or more plants” exert a synergistic effect
`when they are used concomitantly in “preparations for external use on the
`skin.” Id. ¶¶ 6–7. JP ’153 further teaches that compounds that include
`either adenosine or hamamelitannin, but not both, do not achieve the same
`effect. Id. ¶ 11 and Tables 1 and 2. JP’153 discloses that compositions
`comprising 0.01–10% wt. adenosine are “suitable” and exemplifies
`compositions containing adenosine in amount of 0.02%. Id. ¶¶ 12, 21, 22.
`Analysis
`ii.
`Claim 1 requires that “the adenosine concentration applied to the
`dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” Petitioner finds that this element is
`disclosed in DE ’107 by applying a claim construction that interprets this
`limitation to require a concentration “applied to an unbroken, epidermal
`layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal cells.” As discussed
`above, we have construed the claims to require that the recited concentration
`be applied to the dermal cells. Because the Petition does not identify
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`evidence reflecting the concentration of adenosine applied to the dermal
`cells, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 1–7, and 9 were anticipated by JP ’153.
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness in view of JP ’153
`D.
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 4 would have been obvious in view of JP
`’153. Pet. 49–52. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claim 4 would have been obvious in view of JP ’153.
`Disclosures of the Asserted Prior Art
`i.
`
`
`
`
`
`JP ’153
`
`The disclosure of JP ’153 is discussed supra p. 14–15.
`Analysis
`ii.
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further requires “wherein the
`adenosine concentration is about 10-3 M.” Petitioner does not identify any
`evidence or advance any arguments in connection with Ground 2 that
`address the deficiencies discussed above with respect to Ground 1.
`Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4 would have been obvious in
`view of JP ’153.
`E. Ground 3: Obviousness in view of DE ’197 and JP ’153
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1‒7 and 9 would have been obvious in
`view of the combination of DE ’107 and JP ’153. Pet. 52–69. We have
`reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the
`reasons discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–7, and 9 would
`have been obvious in view of the combination of DE ’107 and JP ’153.
`iii. Disclosures of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`JP ’153
`The disclosure of JP ’153 is discussed supra p. 14–15.
`
`
`DE ’107
`
`DE ’107 relates to the “[u]se of an effective content of adenosine in
`cosmetic or dermatological preparations” and, more particularly, the “[u]se
`of adenosine for enhancing cell proliferation in human skin.” Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. DE ’107 discloses:
`
`The present invention . . . includes a cosmetic process for
`protection of the skin and hair against oxidative or
`photoxidative processes which is characterized in that a
`cosmetic agent containing an effective adenosine concentration
`is applied in sufficient quantity to the skin or hair.
`
`The adenosine content in said preparations is preferably
`
`0.001% by weight to 10% by weight, and particularly 0.01% by
`weight to 6% by weight relative to the total weight of the
`preparations.
`
`
`Id. at 14:10–20. DE ’107 discloses 6 examples, each of which include 0.10
`% wt. adenosine. Id. at 14:35–17:3. DE ’107 claims “the use of adenosine
`for enhancing cell proliferation in human skin.” Id. at 18:3–4.
`Analysis
`iv.
`
`Claim 1 requires that “the adenosine concentration applied to the
`dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” Petitioner finds that this element is
`disclosed in the combination of JP ’153 and DE ’107 by applying a claim
`construction that interprets this limitation to require a concentration “applied
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`to an unbroken, epidermal layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal
`cells.” As discussed above, we have construed the claims to require that the
`recited concentration be applied to the dermal cells. Because the Petition
`does not identify evidence reflecting the concentration of adenosine applied
`to the dermal cells, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 3–7, and 9 would have
`been obvious in view of the combination of DE ’107 and JP ’153.
` CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we deny the Petition and do not institute
`trial as to any of the challenged claims of the ’513 patent. Specifically, we
`decline to institute inter partes review on the ground that claims 1–7 and 9
`are anticipated by JP ’153, on the ground that claim 4 would have been
`obvious in view of JP ’153, and on the ground that claims 1–7 and 9 would
`have been obvious in view of the combination of JP ’153 and DE ’107.
`
`
` ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all the challenged claims
`of the ’513 patent.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00779
`Patent 6,645,513 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michelle E. O’Brien
`mobrien@marburylaw.com
`
`Timothy J. Murphy
`tjmurphy@marburylaw.com
`
`Joanna Cohn
`jcohn@marburylaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew B. Lowrie
`mlowrie@foley.com
`BOST-F-UMass513IPR@foley.com
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`smaebius@foley.com
`
`Lucas I. Silva
`lsilva@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket