`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`Patent 9,738,929
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-17
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,738,929
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`A. Summary of Unpatentability Grounds ............................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES ................................. 2
`
`A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 2
`
`B. Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 3
`
`C. Fees .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’929 PATENT ........................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview of the Disclosure of the ’929 Patent .................................................. 3
`
`B. Overview of the Prosecution History ................................................................. 6
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 9
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART ................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Nanopore Sequencing Using Enzyme Chaperones ......................................... 10
`
`B. Sequencing of Complementary Strands to Improve Accuracy ....................... 12
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 13
`
`A. Nanopore Sequencing using Enzyme Chaperones was Known in the Art Prior
`
`to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’929 Patent ......................................... 13
`
`B. Sequencing of Both Strands of a Polynucleotide was Known in the Art Prior
`
`to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’929 Patent ......................................... 16
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Various Linkers for Connecting Complementary Strands of DNA were
`
`Known in the Art Prior to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’929 Patent .. 21
`
`VII. THERE
`
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 24
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 16 are obvious over Akeson and Gupte ..... 24
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 12 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Miner ..................... 41
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 17 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Akeson ’433. ......... 43
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are obvious over Akeson, Sanger and
`
`Makrigiorgos. ........................................................................................................... 45
`
`E. Ground 5: Claim 9 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Makrigiorgos. .......... 60
`
`F. Ground 6: Claim 12 is obvious over Akeson, Sanger, Makrigiorgos and
`
`Miner ........................................................................................................................ 63
`
`G. Ground 7: Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Akeson, Sanger, Makrigiorgos
`
`and O’Dea. ............................................................................................................... 65
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Patrick Hrdlicka
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Patrick Hrdlicka
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0063171
`
`(“Akeson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,087,099 (“Gupte”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0142559 (“Makrigiorgos”)
`
`Miner et al., Nucleic Acids Res., 32(17):e135 (2004) (“Miner”)
`
`O’Dea and McLaughlin, Current Protocols in Nucleic Acid
`
`Chemistry 5.3.1-5.3.8 (2000) (“O’Dea”)
`
`1009
`
`Sambrook, Fritsch and Maniatis, Molecular Cloning, A
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Laboratory Manual (1989, 2nd Ed.) (“Sambrook”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,795,782 to Church et al. (“Church”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,404,907 (“Gilchrist”)
`
`Sanger, “Determination of Nucleotide Sequences in DNA,”
`
`Science 214:1205-1210 (1981) (“Sanger”)
`
`1013
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,936,433 (“Akeson ’433”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`Struhl, “Cloning cookbook for the laboratory,” Nature 316:222
`
`(July 18, 1985).
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (“Oxford” or “Petitioner”) requests
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et
`
`seq. of Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929 (“the ’929 Patent”).
`
`Petitioner asserts that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable and requests review of, and cancellation of, the challenged
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Summary of Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Summary
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 16 are obvious over Akeson and Gupte
`
`Claim 12 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Miner
`
`Claim 17 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Akeson ’433
`
`Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are obvious over Akeson, Sanger and
`
`Makrigiorgos
`
`Claim 9 is obvious over Akeson, Gupte and Makrigiorgos
`
`Claim 12 is obvious over Akeson, Sanger, Makrigiorgos and Miner
`
`Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Akeson, Sanger, Makrigiorgos
`
`and O’Dea
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES
`
`A. Mandatory Notices
`
`Real Party in Interest: The real party in interest is Oxford Nanopore
`
`Technologies, Inc. Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner also identifies
`
`Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Ltd., the parent company of Oxford Nanopore
`
`Technologies, Inc., and Metrichor Ltd., a corporate affiliate of Oxford Nanopore
`
`Technologies, Inc., as parties in interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’929 Patent is subject to a pending lawsuit entitled
`
`Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc.,
`
`which was consolidated into actions 1:17-cv-00275-LPS, 1:17-cv-01353-LPS (D.
`
`Del.), in which Petitioner Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. is a defendant. In
`
`addition, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al v. Pacific Biosciences of
`
`California, Inc., IPR2018-01785, relating to the ’929 Patent was filed on
`
`September 24, 2018.
`
`Lead Counsel: Lead Counsel is Steven Lendaris (Reg. No. 53,202) and
`
`Back-up Counsel is Carolyn Pirraglia (Reg. No. 75,365), each of Baker Botts
`
`L.L.P.
`
`Service Information: Baker Botts L.L.P., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 45th Floor,
`
`New York, NY 10112; Tel. (212) 408-2500; Fax (212) 408-2501. Petitioner
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`consents to service by electronic mail at Oxford929IPR@bakerbotts.com. Powers
`
`of Attorney are filed concurrently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`B. Certification of Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’929 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’929 Patent.
`
`C. Fees
`
`The Office is authorized to charge any fees that become due in connection
`
`with this Petition to Deposit Account No. 02-0384, Ref. No. 078288.0152, as well
`
`as any additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’929 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the Disclosure of the ’929 Patent
`
`The disclosure of the ’929 patent is primarily directed to methods for
`
`performing intermittent detection during sequencing techniques that use optically
`
`detectable labeling groups. Ex. 1001, 2:46-54, 5:19-40, 8:31-35, 20:15-36.
`
`According to the ’929 patent, “one drawback to the use of optically detectable
`
`labeling groups is that prolonged exposure of chemical and biochemical reactants
`
`to [] light sources, alone, or when in the presence of other components, e.g., the
`
`fluorescent groups, can damage such reactants.” Id., 1:55-59. The ’929 patent
`
`states that the disclosed methods are useful “for mitigating photo-induced damage
`
`in an illuminated reaction by subjecting the illuminated reaction to intermittent
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`illumination rather than constant illumination,” “particularly [for] reactions that
`
`employ fluorescent or fluorogenic reactants.” Id., 5:19-22, 20:15-22.
`
`The ’929 patent further describes nucleic acid templates that are completely
`
`contiguous and
`
`include “a double-stranded portion comprised of
`
`two
`
`complementary sequences and two single-stranded linking portions.” Id., 66:22-
`
`27. The ’929 patent also includes a series of paragraphs and figures incorporated
`
`into the specification via a preliminary amendment from Provisional Application
`
`No. 61/099,696 (“the ’696 provisional”). Id., 37:3-38:59, Figures 20 and 21.
`
`These paragraphs and figures relate to nucleic acid templates that are either
`
`completely contiguous or partially contiguous and include a double-stranded
`
`segment. Id. The ’929 patent asserts that “the templates of the invention by virtue
`
`of their inclusion of double-stranded segments, provide consensus through the
`
`identification of both the sense and antisense strand of such sequences ….” Id.,
`
`37:46-50.
`
` More specifically, when describing the completely contiguous
`
`templates, the ’929 patent contends that “[t]hese template molecules are
`
`particularly useful as nucleotide sequence data generated therefrom comprises both
`
`sense and antisense nucleotide sequences for the double-stranded portion … [that]
`
`provides duplicative or redundant sequence information.” Id., 66:37-43.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`Although the disclosure of the ’929 patent is primarily directed to
`
`intermittent detection of sequencing reactions,1 the claims of the ’929 patent are
`
`directed to methods for nanopore-based sequencing of a polynucleotide comprising
`
`a double-stranded portion, where an enzyme chaperone is used to control the
`
`passage of the polynucleotide through the nanopore. Id., 82:35-83:32. The claims
`
`also require obtaining nucleotide sequence information of the complementary
`
`strands of the double-stranded portion and determining a consensus sequence
`
`based on such information. Id. The ’929 patent includes 17 claims, only the first
`
`of which is independent. Id.
`
`In the few paragraphs of the disclosure that relate to nanopore sequencing,
`
`the ’929 patent discloses that methods of fabrication and use of nanopores for
`
`polynucleotide sequencing were well known in the art and cites to nine references
`
`that discuss nanopore sequencing of polynucleotides using enzyme chaperones.
`
`Id., 77:33-41. In particular, the ’929 patent states that “the pattern of variations in
`
`the current passing through the nanopore as the polynucleotide is drawn through
`
`may be monitored and analyzed to determine the nucleotide sequence of the
`
`1 The working examples of the ’929 patent relate to sequencing-by-synthesis of a
`
`nucleic acid template that “comprised a double-stranded region and two single-
`
`stranded linker portions” and obtaining sequence data by intermittent illumination.
`
`Id., 78:53-55, 79:11-29, 81:38-65.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`polynucleotide,” and that “[a] polynucleotide may be drawn through the nanopore
`
`by … enzyme chaperones to guide the polynucleotide through the nanopore.” Id.,
`
`77:26-33.
`
`B. Overview of the Prosecution History
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/383,965 (“the ’965 application”), which
`
`matured into the ’929 patent, was filed on December 19, 2016. Ex. 1013, 109-110,
`
`172. On December 20, 2016, a preliminary amendment was filed to incorporate
`
`disclosure from the ’696 provisional. Id., 174-181. The incorporated disclosure
`
`related to “template configurations and methods for using these configurations in
`
`template directed sequencing processes.” Id., 175-178. Patent Owner represented
`
`that the basis for this amendment was the incorporation by reference of the ’696
`
`provisional into the ’929 patent, and the claim of priority to the ’696 provisional by
`
`the ’929 patent. Id., 180; see also Ex. 1001, 1:12-14, 36:61-37:1.
`
`In the Office Action dated March 14, 2017, claim 1 was rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. Ex. 1013, 652. Specifically, the pending claims were allegedly
`
`directed to an abstract idea, where the recited steps of “monitoring variations,”
`
`“analyzing monitored variations,” and “determining consensus sequence” could be
`
`interpreted as “reading data on a paper or the gathering of data … to obtain desired
`
`sequence information.” Id., 653. In addition, “the active step of introducing
`
`polynucleotide comprising a region of interest to a sequence analysis system …
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`does not make clear how the steps of ‘monitoring’, ‘analyzing’ and ‘determining’
`
`are intended to take place and/or what active processes are involved in these
`
`steps,” and thus “does not transform the abstract idea … into a patent eligible
`
`application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more
`
`than the abstract idea.” Id., 653-654.
`
`Claims 1-8 were also rejected based on nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,102 (“the ’102 patent”). Id.,
`
`655. It was alleged that the specification of the ’102 patent disclosed that the
`
`recited sequences could be scaffold or consensus sequences, which comprised
`
`overlapping redundant sequences, and that claims 1-8 of the ’965 application are
`
`obvious over the teachings of the claims of the ’102 patent. Id., 657-658. A
`
`telephonic interview was conducted on March 28, 2017, during which Patent
`
`Owner proposed claim amendments later submitted in a response, dated March 31,
`
`2017, to overcome the § 101 rejection. Amended claim 1 specified that “the
`
`nanopore is ‘in a membrane’ (previous claim 3); ‘applying a voltage across the
`
`membrane’ (previous claim 6); ‘monitoring variations in ionic current through the
`
`nanopore’ (previous claim 7); and ‘analyzing the monitored variations in ionic
`
`current to obtain nucleotide sequence information for the polynucleotide.’” Id.,
`
`697. Patent Owner argued in its March 31, 2017 response that amended claim 1
`
`“clearly sets forth specific non-abstract steps for determining a nucleotide
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`sequence of a region of interest using a specific sequence analysis platform.” Id.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner submitted a Terminal Disclaimer over the ’102 patent
`
`to overcome the double patenting rejection. Id., 698. The Patent Owner also
`
`added new dependent claims 19-34 and independent claim 35.
`
`In a final Office Action, dated June 5, 2017, the Examiner withdrew the §
`
`101 rejection and the double patenting rejection. Id., 784. However, the Examiner
`
`rejected most of the pending claims over U.S. Publication No. 2003/0044816 to
`
`Denison et al. (“Denison”). Id., 785. Specifically, it was found that although
`
`Denison did not “expressly teach determining the consensus sequence information
`
`… [it] provides the capacity of obtaining redundant sequence information in order
`
`to obtain consensus information.” Id., 786. Thus, the Examiner contended that
`
`“[i]t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the claimed invention to carry out the invention with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success since such steps of detecting desired consensus sequences
`
`and redundant sequences using the sequencing methodology of Denison [sic] is
`
`within the ordinary artisan capabilities and would not negatively alter or modify
`
`the results of sequencing a desired target sequence.” Id., 787.
`
`The Patent Owner responded on June 5, 2018 amending claim 1 to
`
`incorporate the subject matter of claim 26 and intervening claim 15 to recite
`
`“wherein the polynucleotide comprises a double-stranded portion comprising
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`complementary strands of the region of interest” and “wherein the redundant
`
`sequence information comprises the nucleotide sequence of the complementary
`
`strands.” Id., 808, 811. Patent Owner argued that “claim 26 was not rejected
`
`under prior art but rather because it was dependent on a rejected base claim,” and
`
`thus “[c]laim 1 is patentable over Denison [sic] et al.” Id., 811. The Patent Owner
`
`canceled claims 9, 10, 12, 15, 19-26 and 35, in view of the amendments to claim 1.
`
`Id.
`
`A Notice of Allowance was mailed on June 23, 2017, and the Issue Fee was
`
`paid on the same day. Id., 816-820, 833. The ’929 Patent issued on August 2,
`
`2017. Id., 858-859.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSA) for this patent possesses a Ph.D. or an equivalent amount of experience
`
`in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry or a related field. A POSA in the art
`
`area would have knowledge of DNA sequencing techniques including Maxam-
`
`Gilbert and Sanger sequencing, as well as other techniques available on or before
`
`the priority date of the ’929 Patent such as Applied Biosystems/Life Technologies,
`
`Solexa/Illumina, Helicos and PacBio sequencing. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`A. Nanopore Sequencing Using Enzyme Chaperones
`The notion of using nanopores to sequence polynucleotides, such as DNA
`
`and RNA, has been around for decades. A typical nanopore sequencing system
`
`generally contains two chambers that are connected through a nanopore—a hole
`
`with a diameter on the order of one nanometer—embedded in a substrate. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1010, Figure 1; Ex. 1004, Figure 10C.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010, Figure 1.
`
`During sequencing, a polynucleotide of interest, either double-stranded or single-
`
`stranded, is added into one of the chambers, and an electric field is then applied
`
`across the substrate, generating an electric force that pulls the negatively charged
`
`polynucleotide through the nanopore. Ex. 1010, 1:40-2:58; see also id., Figure 1,
`
`Ex. 1004, Figure 2. As individual nucleotides of the polynucleotide pass through
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`the nanopore, each nucleotide transiently blocks the nanopore, causing a change of
`
`ionic current and producing an electric signal that correlates to the size, shape and
`
`identity of the nucleotide. Ex. 1010, 6:14-22, Figure 3. Measuring such
`
`nucleotide-distinct signals allows one to determine the nucleotides that make up
`
`the polynucleotide in a sequential manner, in other words, the nucleotide sequence
`
`of the polynucleotide. Id.
`
`The use of enzyme chaperones, also referred to herein as “molecular
`
`motors,” in nanopore sequencing was well recognized as of the priority date of the
`
`’929 patent. Exemplary molecular motors can be used with nanopore sequencing
`
`include DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases, ribosomes, exonucleases and
`
`helicases. Id., 4:28-30; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ [0008]-[0009], [0013], [0047], claim 3. Such
`
`molecular motors bind to the polynucleotide of interest and assist its translocation
`
`through the nanopore, and thus allowing for the sequencing of the polynucleotide.
`
`Ex. 1010, 4:11-30; see also id., Figure 2. Moreover, the molecular motor has the
`
`advantage of controlling the rate of a polynucleotide passing through a nanopore,
`
`resulting in “a higher degree of resolution with regard to both the composition and
`
`spatial relationship between nucleotide units within a polynucleotide.” Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶ [0007], [0019], [0036]. For example, it was well known that the rate of
`
`movement may be altered by changing reaction conditions, e.g., “a change in
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`voltage, pH, temperature, viscosity, or concentration of a chemical species (e.g.,
`
`ions, cofactors, energy sources, or inhibitors).” Id., ¶ [0009].
`
`B.
`Sequencing of Complementary Strands to Improve Accuracy
`Before the priority dates of the ’929 patent, it was well recognized that an
`
`increased rate of accuracy in polynucleotide sequencing can be obtained by
`
`determining the sequences of both complementary strands of a double-stranded
`
`polynucleotide. See Ex. 1005, Ex. 1009, Ex. 1011, Ex. 1012. As disclosed in
`
`Sambrook, a widely-known manual on DNA sequencing and colloquially referred
`
`to as “The Bible,”2 an increased rate of accuracy can be obtained by sequencing
`
`both strands of the target DNA, comparing sequences of both strands and resolving
`
`“all ambiguities and discrepancies.” Ex. 1009 (“Sambrook”), 13.20; see also Ex.
`
`1011 (“Gilchrist”), 2:61-3:7 (disclosing a method of improving sequencing
`
`accuracy by obtaining forward and reverse data sets and comparing these
`
`sequences); and Ex. 1005 (“Gupte”), 1:13-15 (disclosing that “it is common to
`
`sequence both strands of DNA to minimize any errors which may occur in the
`
`sequencing”).
`
`Even as early as 1980, sequencing of both strands of a double-stranded
`
`nucleic acid was known to improve the accuracy of sequencing. This is evidenced
`
`by the Nobel Laureate speech given by Frederick Sanger in 1980, in which he
`
`2 See, e.g., Struhl, Nature 316:222 (1985) (Ex. 1016).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`states “it [is] necessary to determine the sequence of each region on both strands of
`
`the DNA” to minimize errors during DNA sequencing. Ex. 1012, 3-4.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. Nanopore Sequencing using Enzyme Chaperones was Known in
`the Art Prior to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’929
`Patent
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0063171 was filed as U.S.S.N. 11/088,140
`
`on March 23, 2005 and published on March 23, 2006 (hereinafter “Akeson”) and is
`
`§ 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1004). Akeson was not submitted to, or considered by, the
`
`Examiner, or otherwise made of record, during the prosecution of the ’929 Patent.
`
`Akeson discloses methods for sequencing a polynucleotide using a nanopore
`
`and an enzyme chaperone (i.e., molecular motor) “that physically interacts with a
`
`[] polynucleotide.” Ex. 1004, ¶ [0016]; see also id., ¶ [0008]-[0009], [0017],
`
`[0019]. Akeson teaches that the target polynucleotide can be “single-stranded or
`
`double-stranded.” Id, ¶ [0047]. Akeson further discloses that the molecular motor
`
`can be a polymerase, a helicase or an exonuclease, and that the molecular motor
`
`can be used to modify the rate of translocation of a nucleic acid through a
`
`nanopore. Id., ¶¶ [0019], [0047]-[0051], [0083].
`
`As shown in Figure 10B, Akeson teaches that when “the molecular motor 26
`
`is a helicase, and the polynucleotide is double-stranded DNA,” “[t]he addition of
`
`an energy source [] to the cis solution activates the helicase to separate the DNA
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`and may push one of the strands [86] of the DNA through the pore structure 24.”
`
`Id., ¶ [0090]. In addition, Akeson discloses that when “the molecular motor 26 is a
`
`DNA polymerase, and the double-stranded DNA contains a nick, … the strand [8]
`
`that is dislodged as the polymerase acts may be analyzed, e.g., as it traverses
`
`through the nanopore.”
`
` Id.
`
` Akeson further discloses that the “target
`
`polynucleotide 82 may have a nick in the strand near one termini of the target
`
`polynucleotide 82.” Id., ¶ [0086]. For example, the “break, or nick, in the
`
`phosphodiester backbone towards one termini of the DNA duplex … creates a free
`
`3’-terminal hydroxyl to serve as an initiation site for [a] DNA polymerase.” Id., ¶
`
`[0063].
`
`Id., Figures 10A-10D.
`
`
`
`Akeson further discloses that “the intrinsic rate of movement of a particular
`
`molecular motor may be modified, e.g., by chemical modification of the motor, by
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`changes in temperature, pH, ionic strength, the presence of necessary cofactors,
`
`substrates, inhibitors, agonists, or antagonists, by the nature of the medium (e.g.,
`
`the presence of nonaqueous solvents or the viscosity), by external fields (e.g.,
`
`electric or magnetic fields), and hydrodynamic pressure … to start, stop, increase,
`
`decrease, or stabilize the rate of movement.” Id., ¶ [0083]. In particular, Akeson
`
`discloses that the rate of movement of the polynucleotide can be altered “before,
`
`during, or after the monitoring step.” Id., ¶ [0009].
`
`U.S. Patent 6,936,433 (“Akeson ’433”)
`2.
`U.S. Patent 6,936,433 was filed on November 21, 2001, and issued on
`
`August 30, 2005 (hereinafter “Akeson ’433”) and is § 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1014).
`
`Akeson ’433 was not submitted to, or considered by, the Examiner, or otherwise
`
`made of record, during the prosecution of the ’929 Patent.
`
`Akeson ’433 discloses methods for analyzing the nucleotide sequence of
`
`double-stranded polynucleotides using nanopore systems. Ex. 1014, Abstract,
`
`1:43-63, claim 13. In particular, Akeson ’433 discloses methods where “a fluid
`
`conducting medium that includes a duplex nucleic acid molecule is contacted with
`
`a nanopore under the influence of an applied electric field and the resulting
`
`changes in current through the nanopore caused by the duplex nucleic acid
`
`molecule are monitored.” Id., 1:45-49. Akeson further discloses that the “during
`
`application of the applied electric field, the ion current through the nanopore is
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`measured or monitored over a period of time. Measurements are typically made at
`
`least every 1 s, usually at least every 0.1 s and more usually at least every 0.01 s
`
`using a single nanopore. This step results in the production of a set of measured
`
`current derived data files, where the set typically consists of at least about 5,
`
`usually at least about 10 and more usually at least about 50 individual measured
`
`data points, where the set generally includes many more data points, usually at
`
`least about 100, 1000, 5000 or more.” Id., 10:48-58.
`
`B.
`
`Sequencing of Both Strands of a Polynucleotide was Known in
`the Art Prior to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’929
`Patent
`1.
`Sanger
`Sanger, Science 214:1205-1210 (1981) (hereinafter “Sanger”)
`
`is a
`
`publication of Sanger’s Nobel Laureate speech that was given in 1980 and
`
`published in 1981 and is § 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1012). See also Ex. 1015. Sanger
`
`was not submitted to, or considered by, the Examiner, or otherwise made of record,
`
`during the prosecution of the ’929 Patent.
`
`Sanger discloses that “[i]n most studies on DNA one is concerned with
`
`identifying the right reading frames for protein genes, and to do this the sequence
`
`must be correct. Errors can readily occur in such extensive sequences and
`
`confirmation is always necessary. We usually consider it necessary to determine
`
`the sequence of each region on both strands of the DNA.” Ex. 1012, 3-4.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,087,099 (“Gupte”)
`2.
`U.S. Patent 6,087,099 was filed on September 8, 1997, and issued on July
`
`11, 2000 (hereinafter “Gupte”) and is § 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1005). Gupte was not
`
`submitted to, or considered by, the Examiner, or otherwise made of record, during
`
`the prosecution of the ’929 Patent.
`
`Gupte states that “it is common to sequence both strands of DNA to
`
`minimize any errors which may occur in the sequencing” and discloses methods
`
`“for sequencing both strands of a double-stranded DNA molecule.” Ex. 1005,
`
`1:13-15, 1:55-60, claim 1. In particular, Gupte discloses a process for generating a
`
`double-stranded DNA product having a hairpin structure when sequenced “yields
`
`the sequence of both strands of the original DNA.” Id., 2:10-11, 2:14-18.
`
`As shown in Figure 2B, Gupte discloses the amplification of a double-
`
`stranded polynucleotide (shown in Figure 2A), e.g., genomic DNA, using a pair of
`
`amplification primers to generate a double-stranded polynucleotide product, where
`
`each strand includes a first region (denoted C in Figure 2B) and a second region
`
`(denoted C’ in Figure 2B), which are reverse complements of each other. Id.,
`
`Figure 2A-B, 2:64-3:1, 6:22-28, claim 1. Gupte discloses that the amplification
`
`primers can be complementary to a nucleotide sequence at the 3’ end or the 5’ end
`
`of the double-stranded polynucleotide. Id., 2:42-60, 5:22-37. Gupte further
`
`discloses that “when [the double-stranded polynucleotide product of Figure 2B] is
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`denatured one end of the resulting single stranded DNA loops around to form an
`
`intrastrand stem-loop structure” (shown in Figure 2C)… which is then elongated to
`
`produce “a double-stranded DNA [] wherein the two strands are joined by a loop”
`
`(shown in Figure 2D). Id., 1:49-55, 3:10-20, 4:31-46, Figure 2C-2D. Denaturing
`
`the double-stranded polynucleotide product of Figure 2D followed by PCR
`
`amplification using the amplification primers results in the double-stranded
`
`polynucleotide products of Figure 2E and Figure 2F. Id., 3:21-38, Figure 2E-2F.
`
`Gupte discloses that the polynucleotide products disclosed in Figure 2D, Figure 2E
`
`and Figure 2F can be substrates for sequencing. Id., 7:1-4; see also id., 2:61-63
`
`(stating that “all the strands labeled ꞏSEQ [in Figure 2] are substrates for dye
`
`primer sequencing.”).
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`GIC
`
`EKUNlQ GE
`
`
`
`T—‘CR I'IT'TE 19M" AND 19R
`
`C'GlC HEIDI-119 GE 3133'.
`
`C “31 'C 'EKCMIB 'GE 'MllF.‘
`
`
`
`I
`FIG. 23
`i 3'
`EDGE) rum: mom:
`
`III: 3'
`
`5|
`r.“ EKUNLE' G2 '1-113R'
`
`GL'IE
`
`+ ELGNGATIDN
`FIG. 28
`I
`
`5
`C' EXC'ng' G2 'I~I‘_3R'
`.L
`FIG.2D
`
`DWATTJRE, ANNEAL
`DEHA'TUREr MEAL
`19R 5': ELDNGATE
`193$ £- ELCNGATE
`
`I‘Il3R'G2'EXCIIl'L-3'
`
`'GZ'C EXC‘ng G2 [“133
`
`5'_J_|___I_|_I_|___I_|_ 3' QSEQ.
`
`SEQ-O3 ' _l_l_""""—_l_l_|_T——_I_T_
`5'
`P113 G2 EK'C'NES‘
`I: G C' EXUNZSI'G '3133'
`:I
`
`"
`
`FIG. 2E
`
`I
`
`J—PI—Ii—I
`
`H13R'G2 'EKCNIQ '1: 'G1 'C EKENLQ GE NH
`5.
`I
`—|—|—|—|—-——|—|—R3 -OS_EQ_.
`fl-DE' —I—I—I—I—I—I 5-
`[£13 32 EES-I'JlS E.‘ El C'
`
`FIG. 2F
`
`
`
`Id., Figures 2A-2F.
`Id., Figures 2A-2F.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. 2005/0142559 (“Makrigiorgos”)
`3.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0142559 was filed as U.S.S.N. 10/758,401
`
`on January 15, 2004 and published on June 30, 2005 (hereinafter “Makrigiorgos”)
`
`and is § 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1006). Makrigiorgos was not submitted to, or
`
`considered by, the Examiner, or otherwise made of record, during the prosecution
`
`of the ’929 Patent.
`
`Makrigiorgos discloses methods for generating nucleic acids having hairpin
`
`and dumbbell-like structures, and teaches that such structures can be sequenced.
`
`Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0071], [0072], Figure 3A. As shown in Figure 3A, Makrigiorgos
`
`describes the generation of a dumbbell polynucleotide structure by the addition of
`
`two oligonucleotide “caps” (i.e., linkers) to a double-stranded DNA fragment. Id.,
`
`Figure 3A, ¶ [0028]. Makrigiorgos discloses that the double-stranded DNA
`
`fragment can be a large genomic fragment as “polymerases can displace much
`
`longer (>1 kb) DNA stretches during synthesis.” Id., ¶ [0073].
`
`Makrigiorgos further discloses that the “caps” are “small oligonucleotides
`
`designed to form a hairpin that ligates both top and bottom strands.” Id., ¶¶ [0071],
`
`[0028]. Makrigiorgos further discloses that the linker can include a synthetic
`
`abasic site or a uracil that, upon treatment with uracil glycosylase and heating, is
`
`converted to a strand break and that the strand break provides a site “to initiate the
`
`polymerization reaction.” Id., ¶ [0028], [0071], Figure 3A.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 3A.
`
`C. Linkers for Connecting Complementary Strands of DNA were
`Known in the Art Prior to the Earliest Priority Date Claimed by
`the ’929 Patent
`1. Miner
`Miner et al., Nucleic Acids Res., 32(17):e135 (2004) (hereinafter “Miner”),
`
`was published in 2004 and is § 102(b) prior art (Ex. 1007). See also Ex. 1015.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
`
`
`Miner discloses the use of registration sequences, also referred to as
`
`“barcodes,” to label genomic DNA templates prior to PCR amplification, where
`
`the molecular barcodes are introduced into genomic DNA fragments by hairpin
`
`linkers that contain unique nucleotide sequences. Ex. 1007, Figure 1. Miner