`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BLUEBIRD BIO, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SLOAN KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-7, and 11 ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRIORITY
`DATE OF THEIR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FILING DATE ... 5
`
`III. THE NATURE ARTICLE DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1, 2, 6-
`7, AND 11 OBVIOUS ..............................................................................12
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because a POSA
`Would Not Have Used Restriction Enzymes to Generate the
`Claimed HS Fragments .....................................................................12
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because a POSA
`Would Not Have Used Fig. 1a as a Precision Guide .........................13
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because They Are
`Based on an Impermissible Hindsight-Driven Approach ...................14
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because They Are
`Based on a Flawed Analysis .............................................................17
`
`IV. THE MAY ABSTRACT DOES NOT RENDER THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS ....................................................23
`
`V.
`
`IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
`SUPPORTS NON-OBVIOUSNESS OF THE CLAIMED
`INVENTION .............................................................................................25
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l. Trade Comm’n.,
`932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 9, 11
`
`Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`Elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG and SAP America, Inc.,
`745 F. 3d 490 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 17
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.,
`70 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`San Rocco Therapeutics (“SRT”) provides this sur-reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper 35, herein “Reply”) to Patent Owner’s Response to Petition (Paper
`
`27, herein “POR”).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply makes clear that Petitioner has effectively conceded
`
`Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 of its Petition, namely, that the May Thesis is not prior art
`
`that can anticipate claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11 of the ’061 patent (Ground 1) and
`
`render claim 5 obvious (Ground 2), and that the Nature Article does not anticipate
`
`claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11 (Ground 3) and render claims 5 obvious (Ground 5).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner never raised the Nature Article as a basis for challenging
`
`claims 8 and 15 of the ’061 patent, leaving only claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11 as being
`
`challenged by this reference.
`
`As to the remaining Ground 4, obviousness of claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11 over
`
`the Nature Article, SRT maintains that the Nature Article is not prior art over these
`
`claims because these claims have an effective filing date of their Provisional
`
`Applications (“Provisionals”). Claim 7 is directed to the “β globin gene,” and
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that this claim has in haec verba written description
`
`support from the Provisionals. (Ex. 1034, 2; Ex. 1035, 2-4). Despite the fact that
`
`the Provisionals consistently describe a “β globin gene,” Petitioner’s only reply is
`
`that the POSA would recognize that “β globin gene” is merely “shorthand” for
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`“human β globin gene,” which is the subject of claim 8 or claim 15, and which
`
`Petitioner concedes has priority and written description support from the
`
`Provisionals. But Petitioner cannot have it both ways. If the POSA believed from
`
`reviewing the Provisionals that the term “β globin gene” is merely “shorthand” for
`
`“human β globin gene,” then that same POSA would also understand that the
`
`undisputed working examples of the “human β globin gene” within the claimed
`
`expression vector systems also indicated that the inventors were in possession of a
`
`vector system that could express a “β globin gene,” including the many β globin
`
`gene mutants that were known at the time. Indeed, despite taking the depositions
`
`of the inventors of the ’061 patent, Petitioner failed to impeach their sworn
`
`declarations submitted in these proceedings, which clearly state that by the filing
`
`dates of these Provisionals, these inventors possessed a vector systems system
`
`which would express not just β globin gene mutants, but other globin genes as
`
`well, such as the γ globin gene, which confirms that claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11 also
`
`receive priority to their provisional application filing dates, and thus removing the
`
`Nature Article as prior art.
`
`Even if the Nature Article is considered prior art against claims 1, 2, 6-7, and
`
`11, Petitioner fails to explain how the POSA would have been motivated to arrive
`
`at the specific restriction enzyme fragments within the three hypersensitive regions
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`as claimed, when no such information is disclosed in the Nature Article. In fact, it
`
`is undisputed that if the POSA used what was publicly known about the sequence
`
`information of these hypersensitive regions, the size of these hypersensitive
`
`regions disclosed in the Nature papers, and the known restriction enzymes that
`
`were publicly available in the literature and commercial catalogs, the POSA would
`
`not be able to arrive at any of claimed restriction enzyme fragments of the
`
`Challenged Claims. This cannot be emphasized enough. The only way Petitioner
`
`and its expert Dr. Bungert could arrive at their 6 choices of hypersensitive region
`
`restriction enzyme fragments which allegedly render the Challenged Claims
`
`obvious was to actually deviate from the teachings for the Nature Article by
`
`assuming that when the Nature Article specifically identified a particular size of
`
`these hypersensitive region, such as the “840-bp HS2 fragment,” this really meant
`
`840 ± 20 base pairs. On Reply, Petitioner simply fails to account for this arbitrary
`
`± 20 bp catch-all, which Petitioner concedes is not disclosed in the Nature Article
`
`or anywhere else in the literature as providing a standard deviation for cloning, and
`
`which clearly indicates that Petitioner and Dr. Bungert were improperly using
`
`hindsight by working backwards from the claim language in order to somehow
`
`make the Nature Article fit into the claims. Since restriction enzymes simply would
`
`not have generated the claimed fragments (except if one arbitrarily accounted for a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`± 20 bp difference), this should have foreclosed the POSA from using restriction
`
`enzymes and consider other cloning options, such as the use of PCR. However,
`
`Petitioner fails to explain why a POSA would not have used PCR—a widely used,
`
`routine, and more efficient cloning technique that provides a POSA significant
`
`flexibility to clone HS fragments of a desired size or incorporate desired flanking
`
`restriction sites.
`
`Even if restriction enzymes were used to generate the claimed HS fragments,
`
`Petitioner also fails to explain why a POSA would use Fig. 1a as a precision guide
`
`to map the restriction sites, when Fig. 1a was shown to contain over 200 bp size
`
`discrepancies. In its Opposition, SRT, through its expert, Dr. Riley, demonstrated
`
`that even assuming a number of Dr. Bungert’s flawed approaches at arriving at
`
`potential restriction enzyme fragments (including the arbitrary ± 20 bp size
`
`variability), there would have been many hundreds of possible combinations, and
`
`not just the six (6) initially identified by Dr. Bungert. In Reply, Petitioner’s
`
`attempts to undermine Dr. Riley’s methodology fail for a number of reasons,
`
`foremost being that they are not supported by scientific evidence, but are nothing
`
`more than attorney argument that should not be credited. As shown below, Dr.
`
`Riley’s conclusions remain intact and unrebutted on the record.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Finally, for the same reasons stated above with respect to Ground 4, Ground
`
`6 and Ground 7, which is based on obviousness in view of the May Abstract,
`
`should also be rejected. The May Abstract discloses substantially less information
`
`than the Nature Article and even under Dr. Bungert’s best case scenario, the May
`
`Abstract would leave the POSA with at least hundreds of different restriction
`
`enzyme possibilities, which the Board correctly decided could not support an
`
`obviousness claim.
`
`For at least the reasons discussed below, the Board should find the
`
`Challenged Claims to be patentable over the Grounds alleged in the Petition.
`
`II. CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-7, and 11 ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRIORITY
`DATE OF THEIR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FILING DATE
`
`Petitioner does not challenge the written description of the issued ’061
`
`patent for support of claim 8 or claim 15. However, the only difference between
`
`the ’061 patent specification and the Provisionals for purposes of describing a “β
`
`globin gene” (as opposed to a “human β globin gene”) is that the ’061 patent
`
`makes a single statement describing a “mutant form of globin.” (’061 patent, col.
`
`2:45-47 (“The functional globin gene…may be a mutant form of globin.”)). That
`
`Petitioner argues that the Provisionals do not support a written description of a “β
`
`globin gene” simply because the Provisionals do not explicitly describe that this
`
`gene can be a “mutant” is both legally and scientifically flawed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Under Ariad, a sufficient written description of a genus can be satisfied by
`
`“structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the
`
`art can ‘visualize or recognize’ members of the genus.” Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli
`
`Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). It is
`
`undisputed that the Provisionals describe a human β globin gene, and this human
`
`gene clearly has structural features common to members of a mutant genus. As Dr.
`
`Riley explains, human β globin is 147 amino acids long (Ex. 2056, ¶87; POR, 34),
`
`and a single mutation along its length would be more than 99% identical to the
`
`native protein, and two mutations would still be more than 98% identical. Clearly,
`
`the POSA would be able to visualize members of this genus given this structural
`
`similarity, and especially in view of the fact that mutations to the human β globin
`
`gene were so well studied as of the time of the Provisionals. In Opposition, SRT
`
`pointed out the that the human β globin gene described in the Provisionals is itself
`
`a mutant because it contains the IVS2 deletion not found in native genes. In Reply,
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the human β globin gene is a mutant, but argues
`
`that because the deletion occurs at the intron, the encoded protein would be the
`
`same as one that was naturally occurring. But Petitioner misses the point. Mutant
`
`human β globin genes were so well studied and published by the time of the
`
`Provisionals that even the human β globin gene of the Challenged Claims (as
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`exemplified in the Provisionals) was a mutant, and SRT showed numerous
`
`examples of these mutations in its Opposition resulting in mutant human β globin
`
`proteins. (POR, 27-29; Ex. 2056, ¶95-96).
`
`Moreover, the POSA would also have recognized that the inventors were in
`
`possession of an expression vector system that could not just express human β
`
`globin, but mutant human β globin as well, which was confirmed by the inventors’
`
`declarations and testimony in this case, which remain unrebutted on the record.
`
`(Ex. 1051, 145:12-16; POR, 27-29). Given this glaring structural similarity
`
`between human β globin and its mutants, it is not surprising that the inventors
`
`chose to use the term “β globin” when describing their expression system in the
`
`Provisionals no less than 10 times. While Petitioner attempts to casually discount
`
`this clear in haec verba support as mere “shorthand” for human β globin, by doing
`
`so, Petitioner just underscores how representative human β globin is to the β globin
`
`genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350 (sufficient written description of a genus can be
`
`shown by “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the
`
`genus.”).
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 2, Petitioner characterizes “functional globin” as a
`
`“vast genus” (Reply at 3). But again, the ’061 patent specification defines
`
`“functional globin gene” as either mutants or wild-type in the form of three known
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`globin genes, “α-globin, β-globin, or γ-globin.” SRT and Dr. Riley have
`
`conclusively shown the similar structural characteristics between β-globin and γ-
`
`globin (POR, 33-34; Ex. 2056, ¶¶87-88), which Petitioner does not dispute on
`
`Reply. Even Dr. Bungert admitted that he “expected” expression of other globin
`
`genes apart from human β-globin. (Ex. 2055, 212:8-19; POR, 36). And while he
`
`testified that expression of γ-globin is not necessarily straightforward and might
`
`not provide a therapeutic level of expression, the Challenged Claims do not require
`
`therapeutic levels of expression but merely require some level of “expression of
`
`the globin in vivo.”
`
`While the Provisionals clearly describe the invention as providing “a
`
`paradigm for any stem cell therapy requiring stable and regulated expression of a
`
`tissue-specific transgene,” Petitioner relegates this in its Reply as “no more than a
`
`wish” that does not demonstrate possession by the inventors. (Reply at 5).
`
`However, the living inventors all submitted declarations in these proceedings
`
`clearly indicating that at the time of the Provisionals, they believed that their
`
`lentivirus expression system could express globin genes other than human β-
`
`globin, and none of their opinions were rebutted by Petitioner at deposition. See
`
`Sadelain Decl., ¶30 (“Once you solved two big issues: (1) levels of expression that
`
`are high enough to be therapeutic [with human β-globin] and (2) stable transfer of
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`genetic material and good efficiency [with human β-globin], it would be apparent
`
`that you can use this design as a recipe for other vectors. Instead of the beta-globin
`
`gene, you could use an animal globin gene, a fetal gene [γ-globin] etc., and
`
`reasonably expect expression of that gene.”) (See also May Decl., ¶15; Rivella
`
`Decl., ¶17).
`
`Ajinomoto supports SRT, not Petitioner. There, the Federal Circuit
`
`confirmed that a “a patentee may rely on information that is well-known in the art
`
`for purposes of meeting the written description requirement, because the
`
`specification is viewed from the perspective of one of skill in the relevant art.”
`
`Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l. Trade Comm’n., 932 F.3d 1342, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(internal quotations omitted). Ajinomoto was one of those circumstances, where the
`
`written description for “more potent promoters” was evaluated using both the
`
`content of the specification and the knowledge of a POSA. In particular, “the
`
`genus of more potent promoters was already well explored in the relevant art by
`
`the time of the ’655 patent’s invention” and “the Commission permissibly found in
`
`the specification, read in light of the background knowledge in the art, a
`
`representative number of species for the genus of more potent promoters.” That is
`
`the same circumstance here: the Provisionals disclosed, inter alia, “[t]he vector of
`
`the invention is used in therapy for treatment of individuals suffering from
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`hemoglobinopathies,” gave the example of a “β-globin gene,” and expressly did
`
`not limit this to a β-globin gene: “the principles underlying inclusion of multiple
`
`genetic elements within this vector provide a paradigm for any stem cell therapy
`
`requiring stable and regulated expression of a tissue-specific transgene.” It was
`
`well known in the art that “hemoglobinopathies” are disorders that result from
`
`mutations in one or more functional globin genes, which includes, e.g., the alpha,
`
`beta, epsilon, or gamma globin genes, (Ex. 2056 at ¶85) and it was not necessary to
`
`convert the Provisionals into remedial training for a POSA with “at least an
`
`advanced degree,… several years of post-graduate training… [and] an
`
`understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene
`
`expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.”
`
`(Petition, 19). A POSA would have understood that the Provisionals disclosed a
`
`vector for any stem cell therapy requiring stable and regulated expression of a
`
`tissue-specific transgene, was specifically useful for hemoglobinopathies (i.e.,
`
`replacement of defective globin), and therefore would deliver a replacement (i.e.,
`
`working) globin gene. Against this backdrop, the “functional globin” makes
`
`perfect sense: a working globin. There was no need to list out every possible globin
`
`where the field was already well explored in the relevant art. (POR, 32-36). It is
`
`not “obviousness” to look to how a POSA would understand those disclosures, as
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Petitioner suggests. (POR, 21-23). Notably, citation 9 of the Provisionals was a
`
`1995 article by named inventor Sadelain discussing “Recombinant Human β-
`
`Globin Genes.” (Ex. 1022, 2; cf. Ajinomoto, 932 F.3d 1359-60 (discussing articles,
`
`including one cited in the specification, in the written description analysis)).
`
`Moreover, the fact that Ajinomoto disclosed examples is inapposite where the
`
`Provisionals also contained examples of natural and mutant globin genes (β-globin
`
`gene with IVS2 deletion) (Ex. 1035, 5, Fig. 1; POR, 8, 29).
`
`Here, the claimed invention is directed to a vector having a particularly
`
`novel aspect that involves the three larger contiguous nucleotide fragments from a
`
`human β-globin LCR. (POR, 7-8; Ex. 1001, 2:54-56). Petitioner does not dispute
`
`the LCR and the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments contained therein are sufficiently
`
`described in the Provisionals. (Reply, 2-6). The Provisionals make clear that the
`
`application of the novel LCR for expression of a functional globin was
`
`contemplated by the inventors for “treatment of individuals suffering from
`
`hemoglobinopathies.” (POR, 24-36; Ex. 1005, 6; Ex. 1034, 2). As Dr. Riley
`
`explained, “[hemoglobinopathies] is an encompassing term[] [including] alpha,
`
`gamma, and beta-globin.” (POR, 33-35; Ex. 1052, 60:13-17). Indeed, the
`
`Provisionals state that “the principles underlying inclusion of multiple genetic
`
`elements within this vector provide a paradigm for any stem cell therapy requiring
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`stable and regulated expression of a tissue-specific transgene.” (POR, 32-33; Ex.
`
`1035, 7).
`
`Therefore, the Provisionals meet the written description requirement, and
`
`claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 11 are entitled to the priority date of their provisional
`
`application filing date.
`
`III. THE NATURE ARTICLE DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1, 2, 6-7,
`AND 11 OBVIOUS
`
`(a) Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because a POSA
`Would Not Have Used Restriction Enzymes to Generate the
`Claimed HS Fragments
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that even though the entire map of the LCR
`
`region was available at that time, a POSA would have recognized that there were
`
`no combinations of restriction enzymes that can provide the claimed HS2, HS3,
`
`and HS4 LCR fragments with the actual fragment size (i.e., 840 bp for HS2, 1308
`
`bp for HS3, and 1069 bp for HS4, respectively) disclosed in the Nature Article.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 2055, 155:4-155:8). Even assuming a POSA would disregard such
`
`clear teaching away and follow Dr. Bungert’s criteria (e.g., excluding frequent
`
`cutters such as BanII), Petitioner admits that a POSA would have a “lack of other
`
`options for HS4 fragment.” (Reply, 17; POR, 45).
`
`With these apparent obstacles, Petitioner refused to consider PCR—a widely
`
`used, routine, and more efficient cloning technique that provides a POSA
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`significant flexibility to clone HS fragments of a desired size and/or incorporate
`
`desired flanking restriction sites. (Ex. 2056, 32; POR, 42). Petitioner cannot deny
`
`that while “PCR is imperfect and can make a mistake,” such mistake is rare when a
`
`high-fidelity polymerase is used, and if any, can be ruled out by sequencing. (Ex.
`
`2056, ¶142). Indeed, Dr. Sadelain further explained that “if we use PCR, we will
`
`run sequenc[ing].” (Ex. 1066, 41:3-4). In fact, Dr. Bungert himself routinely used
`
`PCR to clone LCR fragments to study globin genes and many others did so as well.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 2056, ¶141).
`
`Instead, Dr. Bungert, struggling to arrive at the claimed invention, relies on
`
`Fig. 1a in the Nature Article as a precision guide and his hindsight-driven
`
`approach.
`
`(b) Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because a POSA
`Would Not Have Used Fig. 1a as a Precision Guide
`
`Dr. Bungert’s reliance on Fig. 1a as a precision guide is misplaced. As Dr.
`
`Sadelain explained, Fig. 1a is a cartoon merely to show proportionality between
`
`the HS fragments of the RNS1 vector and those of the TNS9 vector. (Ex. 1066,
`
`98:24-99:3). In this regard, Petitioner ignores his explanation that “[Fig. 1a] is not
`
`intended to be … a road map.” (Ex. 1066, 99:9-10). Consistently, Dr. May stated,
`
`“These aren’t data figures. These are illustrations or cartoons. So I wouldn’t say
`
`they are a map. A map would be an actual series of the base pairs that you’re
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`looking at.” (Ex. 1053, 51:23-52:1). Dr. Riley also explained that Fig. 1a is only a
`
`“cartoon” and “due to the substantial size discrepancies of over 200 bp in Fig. la,
`
`a POSA would at best view Fig. la as provid[ing] a … rough guideline” (emphasis
`
`added). (Ex. 1052, 143:3-4, 9-13). Petitioner cannot deny that it is not reasonable
`
`to use a cartoon as depicted in Fig. 1a that has “substantial size discrepancies of
`
`over 200 bp” to identify HS fragments within ± 20 bp – an unsupported, arbitrary
`
`size variability set by Dr. Bungert.
`
`(c) Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because They Are
`Based on an Impermissible Hindsight-Driven Approach
`
`Petitioner’s arbitrary selection of ± 20 bp size variability of the HS
`
`fragments disclosed in the Nature Article and inconsistent application of rules for
`
`selecting restriction enzymes demonstrate Petitioner’s hindsight driven approach.
`
`Because the length of the three HS fragments in the Nature Article are
`
`different than the length between restriction sites of the claimed HS fragments,
`
`Petitioner arbitrarily awards itself some leeway, ± 20 bp, to the sizes disclosed in
`
`the Nature Article—just enough to cover through hindsight the 17 bp size
`
`discrepancy of the claimed the HS2 fragment. Of course, a larger size variability
`
`would create more possible combinations for the six restriction sites for HS
`
`fragments. Conveniently, Dr. Bungert only considers a ± 20 bp size variability
`
`while providing no support and no reasonable explanation as to why a POSA
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`would not instead use a ± 21 bp, ± 22 bp, or more size variability. (POR, 43-44;
`
`Ex. 2056, ¶157). Petitioner’s reliance on the prosecution history of the ’061 patent
`
`to justify the Dr. Bungert’s arbitrary (and hindsight driven) selection of ± 20 bp is
`
`unavailing because the file wrapper was not available to a POSA at the time that
`
`the claimed invention was made.
`
`Petitioner cannot dispute that its own expert provided criteria that a POSA
`
`would use to select restriction enzymes and then ignored those criteria when it was
`
`convenient. Dr. Bungert stated that “a POSA would exclude those restriction
`
`enzymes that: (1) cleave the DNA outside the restriction site as it would lead to
`
`unwieldy fragments that are difficult to integrate into a vector; and (2) cleave the
`
`LCR too frequently, which would prevent one from generating fragments of
`
`sufficient length.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶149, emphasis added.) Dr. Bungert further stated
`
`that a POSA would avoid using restriction enzymes that (i) have undefined
`
`nucleotides as part of their recognition sequence (including the claimed BstXI)
`
`(Reply, 18; POR, 45; Ex. 2055, 54:9-14), or (ii) generate blunt ends (including the
`
`claimed SnaBI). (POR, 45; Ex. 2055, 59:11-16).
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Bungert then ignore Dr. Bungert’s stated exclusions and
`
`preferences in order to select the claimed HS fragments. The claimed HS4
`
`fragment recites an enzyme, BanII (a frequent cutter) that, according to Dr.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Bungert, a POSA would “exclude.” Petitioner admits that without including BanII,
`
`a POSA would “lack [] other options for HS4 fragment.” (Reply, 17; POR, 45; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶154). Yet, guided by the ’061 patent, Dr. Bungert conveniently violates his
`
`own criteria to include BanII. (POR, 45; Ex. 1002, ¶154).
`
`The claimed HS2 fragment uses two enzyme that, according to Dr. Bungert,
`
`a POSA would avoid, namely BstXI (recognition sequence with undefined
`
`nucleotides) and SnaBI (blunt end cutter). (POR, 45; Ex. 2055, 59:11-16). Further,
`
`Petitioner argues that “a POSA would have considered these types of restriction
`
`enzymes” (Reply, 18), even though Dr. Bungert fails to consider such enzymes in
`
`his analysis, for example, Bpu10I and BlpI in the analysis of HS3. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶153).
`
`In an attempt to reduce the hundreds of possible combinations of HS
`
`fragments identified by Dr. Riley, Petitioner simply eliminated the possible HS
`
`fragments having restriction sites that have undefined nucleotides as part of their
`
`recognition sequence, cut outside the recognition site, or cut frequently unless such
`
`an enzyme is recited in the claims. (Reply, 20-23). Clearly, Dr. Bungert’s arbitrary
`
`application of his own criteria to arrive at the claimed invention is hindsight-
`
`driven.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`(d) Petitioner’s Arguments Should Be Rejected Because They Are
`Based on a Flawed Analysis
`
`Dr. Bungert’s criteria to exclude restriction enzymes not only was applied
`
`arbitrarily as discussed above, but they are also flawed because they are not
`
`supported by credible scientific evidence. While SRT and its expert, Dr. Riley,
`
`conclusively showed in Opposition that the Nature Article would have presented
`
`the POSA with upwards of 560 combinations of restriction enzyme choices,
`
`Petitioner attempts to pare down these options without supporting their attorney
`
`arguments with a declaration by their scientific expert, Dr. Bungert. As such,
`
`Petitioner’s attorney arguments on Reply should not be credited. See Invitrogen
`
`Corp. v. Clontech Labs., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“unsubstantiated
`
`attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for
`
`competent substantiated expert testimony”; Elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG and
`
`SAP America, Inc., 745 F. 3d 490, 506 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Without evidence, [a
`
`court cannot] decide whether, for a specific function, the description in the
`
`specification is adequate from the viewpoint of a [POSITA] . . . . The burden was
`
`on [defendant] to prove its case, and in the absence of evidence provided by
`
`technical experts . . . there is a failure of proof. Attorney argument is not
`
`evidence.”).
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Petitioner’s conclusion that after removing fragments from Dr. Riley’s
`
`analysis “only 8 combinations” remain is based on Petitioner’s faulty analysis that
`
`arbitrarily eliminates commercially available restriction enzymes. (Reply, 18,
`
`23; POR, 46; Ex. 1002, ¶149).
`
`Petitioner supports the exclusion of commercially available restriction
`
`enzymes that cut outside the restriction site by pointing to Dr. Bungert’s
`
`unsupported statement that they “lead to unwieldy fragments that are difficult to
`
`integrate into a vector.” (Ex. 1002, ¶149). Dr. Bungert’s explanation, however, for
`
`why such fragments would be “unwieldy” simply does not make sense—he
`
`explains that by unwieldy he means that “the end of the fragments are better
`
`defined when you use enzymes that cut within the recognition site.” (Ex. 2055,
`
`57:8-12). But, Dr. Bungert then admits that because the sequence of the LCR was
`
`known, the sequence of the generated fragment would, in fact, be defined. (Id.
`
`57:13-19; see also id., 50:7-51:3 and 55:4-56:7). Further, Dr. Bungert stated that
`
`such fragments would be difficult to integrate into a vector, “unless you blunt
`
`them.” (Id. 58:13-16). But, Dr. Bungert admits that it would be routine for a POSA
`
`to create a blunt end. (Id. 58:22-59:5). Further, creating a blunt end cannot be
`
`problematic, otherwise a POSA would also not use restriction enzymes like SnaBI
`
`(recited in claim 1 and 11), which always creates a blunt end. Simply put, Dr.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`Bungert provides no rationale for excluding restriction enzymes that cut outside of
`
`their recognition sequences, except his unsupported belief that “a POSA would
`
`have preferred enzymes that don’t cut outside the recognition site.” (Id. 65:6-8).
`
`Likewise, Dr. Bungert and Petitioner arbitrarily exclude restriction enzymes
`
`that cut the HS fragment into multiple pieces (“frequent cutters”), except when the
`
`frequent cutter is a claimed restriction enzyme (i.e., BanII for HS4). Dr. Bungert
`
`cites to no support for his exclusion of such enzymes, and his only rationale for
`
`excluding them is that use of such enzymes would require some additional steps.
`
`(Id. 75:18-24). But, Petitioner cannot have it both ways—if the additional steps
`
`would have dissuaded a POSA from using frequent cutters, then the POSA would
`
`also not have selected a HS4 fragment generated using BanII.
`
`Petitioner cites the statement “Dr. Riley strictly followed the same
`
`methodology as Dr. Bungert” to suggest that Dr. Riley contradicted himself in his
`
`analysis by including more restriction enzymes. (Reply, 18). However, Petitioner
`
`ignores the preceding statement “[t]he only difference is that Dr. Riley accounted
`
`for additional commercially available restriction enzymes that Dr. Bungert
`
`inexplicably ignored.” (POR, 47). Again, for the sole purpose of comparison with
`
`Dr. Bungert’s analysis, Dr. Riley “more rigorously applied the criteria asserted by
`
`Dr. Bungert” (“(a) with fragment sizes of 840 ± 20 bp for HS2, 1308 ± 20 bp for
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00074
`Patent No. 8,058,061
`
`
`HS3, and 1069 ± 20 bp for HS4, respectively, and (b) with relative positions
`
`closely matching those shown in Fig. 1a of the Nature Article”). (Ex. 2056, ¶¶168-
`
`169; POR, 47). In fact, Dr. Riley’s “Restriction Site Map Analysis” lists additional
`
`HS fragments (colored in grey) that could have been added to possible
`
`combinations of HS fragments, such as the PstI-SpeI HS3 fragment identified by
`
`Dr. Bungert. (Ex. 2056, Figs. 17-19; Ex. 1002, ¶153).
`
`Petitioners unsupported analysis of the HS fragments identified by Dr. Riley,
`
`in addition to eliminating HS fragments by arbitrarily excluding restriction
`
`enzymes, also makes