UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NIPPON SUISAN KAISHA LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`____________
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 27, 2018
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND,
`and RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NIPPON SUISAN KAISHA LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`____________
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 27, 2018
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND,
`and RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` STEPHEN B. MAEBIUS, ESQUIRE
` FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
` 3000 K Street, NW
` Suite 600
` Washington DC 20007
` (202) 672-5569
`
` DANIEL R. SHELTON, ESQUIRE
` FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
` 975 Page Mill Road
` Palto Alto, CA 94304
` (650) 251-1119
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` MATTHEW S. GIBSON, ESQUIRE
` REED SMITH LLP
` 811 Main Street
` Suite 1700
` Houston, TX 77002
` (713) 469-3895
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 27, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Please be seated. Good afternoon,
`Counsel. This is the oral hearing in PGR2017-00033. The
`patent challenged in this proceeding is U.S. Patent
`9,447,360. I'm Judge Paulraj and we have two judges
`participating remotely today. On my left -- on the screen on
`my left you can see Judge Richard Smith. He's joining us
`from Texas. And on my right is Judge Michelle Ankenbrand.
`She's joining us from Delaware.
` As set forth in our trial hearing order, each side
`will have a total of 60 minutes to present their arguments.
`Since Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof of
`establishing unpatentability at least for the original
`claims, Petitioner will start their presentation first.
` We also have a motion to amend in this proceeding
`with two sets of proposed substitute claims. Petitioner may
`address the motion to amend as part of their initial
`presentation. Petitioner may reserve some time for rebuttal
`but no more than half of its allotted time. So no more than
`30 minutes in this proceeding.
` Patent Owner will be permitted to respond to
`Petitioner's arguments and Patent Owner may also reserve a
`brief sur-rebuttal, if requested.
` So I want to emphasize since we have two judges
`participating remotely that Judges Smith and Ankenbrand may
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`not be able to see exactly what is put up on the screen in this
`room, so please make sure you do identify any demonstratives
`or exhibits you are referring to by page numbers or column
`and line numbers. I understand Patent Owner's counsel has
`not given us any demonstratives. So to the extent that you
`are referring to exhibits or papers, please make sure what
`you're referring to is clear to the remote judges.
` With that, let's start with introductions. We'll
`start with Petitioner's counsel first.
` MR. MAEBIUS: Good afternoon. This is Steve
`Maebius from Foley & Lardner on behalf of Petitioner.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Welcome, Mr. Maebius.
` MR. SHELTON: And this is Dan Shelton, also on
`behalf of Petitioner.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Thank you, Mr. Shelton.
` MR. GIBSON: Matt Gibson with Reed Smith on behalf
`of Pronova, Patent Owner.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
` So Petitioner's counsel, since you'll go first, how
`much time would you like for your initial presentation?
` MR. SHELTON: We would reserve 30 minutes.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Thank you. So I'll put
`that up on the screen and I think the light behind me will
`turn yellow when you have one minute left on your time. Are
`there any other preliminary matters we need to address before
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`we proceed? All right. Ready whenever you are, Counsel.
` MR. SHELTON: Can everyone hear me okay with this?
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Yeah.
` MR. SHELTON: Okay. So thank you. My name is Dan
`Shelton again and I represent Petitioner Nippon Suisan Kaisha
`also known as Nisui. With me today is lead counsel Steve
`Maebius, and in the audience are two members from the
`Petitioner, Mr. Fujiwara and Dr. Okona. Today I'd like to
`briefly go through what I hope to talk about and then we'll
`get into the substance. So I would like to give a quick
`overview of the challenged patent just to confirm that the
`patent is PGR eligible and then go through the instituted
`grounds of indefiniteness, lack of novelty and obviousness.
`At the end, if there's time, we'll address the substitute
`claims in our initial time period.
` The ’360 patent is directed to processes for
`reducing the amount of undesired components and marine oil
`compositions. The marine oil composition products are
`produced by a process and the products that are intermediate
`and finals are also claims in this patent. The claims --
`let's look at claim 1.
` So claim 1 which we'll refer to quite a bit in this
`discussion is a process for reducing the amount of undesired
`components and there are three steps. First is providing a
`crude marine oil comprising certain components and those I'll
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`discuss in a moment. All of these components were common
`within commercially available crude marine oils. This crude
`marine oil is subjected to an aqueous fluid processing step
`which removes undesired hydrophilic components. Again, this
`is something that was well known in the art. Then the oil is
`subjected to a stripping processing step, basically a
`distillation which again was the well understood way of
`proceeding.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Mr. Shelton, I do want to remind
`you again to refer to the particular slides so the remote
`judges can participate, follow along.
` MR. SHELTON: Oh, okay. This is not up on the
`screen?
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: They do not --
` MR. SHELTON: (Inaudible).
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: They have access to the
`demonstratives but unfortunately they won't be able to see
`the demonstrative like that.
` MR. SHELTON: I'm sorry. My misunderstanding.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Sure.
` MR. SHELTON: This is slide 4 that I'm on.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. So if you could just
`briefly refer to the slide number for each slide that you do
`go to.
` MR. SHELTON: Okay. Understood.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` So moving to slide 5, step A includes a crude
`marine oil. These crude marine oils normally contain the
`recited components that are in claim 1. The background of
`this patent discusses that crude oil products normally
`contain small amounts of hydrophilic components such as water
`soluble proteins, peptides, et cetera, and Patent Owner's
`expert said that crude marine oil in step A is a typical
`crude marine oil composition and that there's always some
`level of water, or other hydrophilic component that is in these
`oils.
` Looking at step B, the aqueous fluid processing
`step, there are patents, textbooks, articles all describing
`this as a typical standard processing step for the refining
`of marine oils. On this slide, referring to slide 6 now, on
`this slide is just one example of a crude oil at the top
`being subjected to hot water treatments, being subjected to
`degumming and removing hydratable compounds; fossils, lipids,
`proteins, transition metals. So this is not the only
`evidence that has been provided by Petitioner but it is one
`example of how routine an aqueous fluid processing step is
`and how well understood.
` Moving to slide 7, the third step in this is the
`distillation step and it includes a working component. So if
`you see in claim 1 the free fatty acid includes a working --
`it includes a working fluid. And the addition of a volatile
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`working fluid was again well understood in the art. The
`background of the ’360 patent refers to volatile working
`fluids in triglyceride oils as improving the distillation
`process and in fact the background refers to Breivik, which
`describes free fatty acids being used as internal free fatty
`acids that were originally present in the oils being used as
`the volatile working fluid.
` Moving to slide 8. So those are the three elements
`of claim 1. Claims 22 and 26 are compositions resulting from
`the claim 1 method. Claim 22 is a product by process, which
`essentially claims the composition at the end of the method
`recited in claim 1, whereas claim 26 is a product claim, which claims
`a product that is essentially made after step B but before
`the stripping processing step.
` This patent is available for PGR. This is a
`transition application and the priority document, it was pre-
`AIA but the actual filing of the non-provisional was not and
`in the institution decision this Board found that the record
`did not establish that original claims 22 and 23 were
`supported in the pre-AIA application.
` Since that decision there's been no additional --
`moving to slide 10. Sorry. Moving to slide 10, Patent Owner
`did not provide any additional evidence in support of benefit
`of priority after the institution decision. So it's the
`Petitioner's position that the original finding should stand.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Moving to slide 11. Briefly, there's one
`instituted ground for indefiniteness, a number for
`anticipation and then three for obviousness. We'll go
`through the first -- the indefiniteness and the anticipation
`individually and then discuss the unpatentable as non-obvious
`together as the Patent Owner has raised the same issues in
`each.
` First, with respect to --
` JUDGE SMITH: Before you go forward, is it
`Petitioner's position that water is an undesired hydrophilic
`component?
` MR. SHELTON: It is.
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. SHELTON: Under the indefiniteness position,
`the broad -- there are a number of claims which include a
`broad and a narrower limitation within the same claim. And
`these are recited on slide 12. Looking at slide 13 quickly,
`each limitation imparts more than one scope of coverage for
`the same limitation. There was no evidence to support a
`different position and instead Patent Owner submitted
`substitute claims allegedly rendering this challenge moot.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I have a question about that.
`So you say in the demonstratives that Patent Owner's
`substitute claims allegedly render the challenge moot. How
`does that square with what is in the Petitioner reply at page
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3, which says -- which specifically addressing Ground 1 states
`that the ground of unpatentability is moot given amendment of
`these challenged claims by Patent Owner? So is it
`Petitioner's position that the ground is moot or that the
`ground is not moot?
` MR. SHELTON: I believe it's Petitioner's position
`that if the first set of amended claims is entered then it
`would be moot. However, the claims that are presently in the
`patent suffer. We maintain the position with respect to the
`current claims in the patent.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Okay. And that's a position set
`forth originally in the petition and you didn't provide
`anything else in the reply, right? I think you just refer us
`back to the petition?
` MR. SHELTON: Correct.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Okay.
` MR. SHELTON: There was nothing additional provided
`by Patent Owner to argue against. It was a statement that it
`would be moot upon entry of the amendment.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. SHELTON: Ground 2 in this case was not
`instituted and parties agreed not to institute at a later
`time as well. So when we move to Ground 3 on slide 14, this
`is the Doisaki reference, which was instituted as
`anticipating claims 1 through 7 and 11 through 26.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Before we move to the prior
`grounds, is your indefiniteness argument as to at least the
`original claims premised on the broadest reasonable
`interpretation or -- I noticed you did cite In re Packard in
`your petition which is -- you know, it sets forth one
`standard when claims are assessed under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation. I want to know if your position
`would change if the office were to adopt a Phillips-style
`claim construction standard.
` MR. SHELTON: Our position would not change as
`recited by Dr. Shahidi in his declaration and as written out
`in the petition it's essentially impossible to tell whether
`or not the narrower limitations provide some sort of further
`restriction of the claim scope or whether the broadest
`limitation in there should provide claim scope. And under
`either broadest reasonable interpretation or a new standard,
`if so adopted, the result would be the same.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay.
` MR. SHELTON: Moving to slide 14. Doisaki
`anticipates the method claims and the -- well, method claims
`1 through 7, 11 through 21 and then the composition claims.
`In Doisaki, Example 4 and paragraph 35 both discuss the
`relevant disclosure and so in Example 4 we see a crude
`sardine oil which has an acid value, free fatty acid, meaning
`that there were free fatty acid, was washed with warm water
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`and subjected to short path distillation. It is Petitioner's
`position that the wash with warm water reads upon step
`B, the aqueous fluid processing, and then the short path
`distillation reads upon step C.
` Again, 35, paragraph 35 informs the person of skill
`and art that the feedstock oil was subjected to a degumming
`process as by washing with water. Now, a degumming process
`is to remove hydrophilic -- undesired hydrophilic components.
`That's what it is for as set forth in the references. And so
`Patent Owner's argument that somehow this -- the crude oil
`would not have undesired hydrophilic components is not
`supported by the addition of a degumming process.
` So moving to slide 15, the upper box is from the
`Patent Owner response and with respect to step A Petitioner
`has not demonstrated the undesired hydrophilic components are
`necessarily present in the crude sardine oil. And we
`highlight in slides 15, 16, and 17 three different points
`where in fact Petitioner believes that this has been
`demonstrated. First, it's well-known in the art, as the ’360
`patent explains, that crude oils normally contain a small
`amount of hydrophilic components. Okada shows -- Okada
`Exhibit 1021 shows evidence that despite extraction method
`there remains at least some protein in sardine oil. We show
`this as evidence that there may not -- even if there was some
`previous undisclosed step there would still -- the water wash
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`would still be on a component that had -- on oil that had
`undesired hydrophilic components.
` Degumming, as I mentioned briefly before, is for
`the purpose of removing hydrophilic components. Dr. Shahidi,
`Petitioner's expert, attested to this and stated that if
`there wasn't -- there had to be some reason for a degumming
`step or an aqueous fluid processing step. The reason --
`otherwise the step would be extraneous. Why would someone
`perform this step? And that purpose is to remove undesired
`hydrophilic components.
` JUDGE SMITH: Counsel, on that point, is there
`another reason to use an aqueous washing step other than
`removing the hydrophilic components?
` MR. SHELTON: None that has been presented by
`either side.
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
` MR. SHELTON: So I can think -- in an aqueous
`washing step the overwhelming -- the art that has been cited
`states that these are the types of things that are removed;
`proteinaceous compounds, transition metals, et cetera, and
`these are all undesired hydrophilic components.
` JUDGE SMITH: Another question I have on this issue
`of both a presence of the hydrophilic components in the
`marine oil and then the washing step is Patent Owner
`essentially argues that Petitioner has not established
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`inherency but it was not clear to me at least from your
`briefing that you were relying on a doctrine or theory of
`inherency. Is that correct, you're not relying on inherency?
` MR. SHELTON: I do not think that we are limiting
`ourselves to a doctrine of inherency, however in view of
`Patent Owner's position taken during this process we have
`directed the Board's attention to why this component would
`necessarily be present indeed for the reasons that we're
`discussing right now.
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
` MR. SHELTON: So looking at slide 16, again this is
`a quote from Dr. Shahidi's declaration essentially stating
`that this step, the water wash step would essentially be
`extraneous if it had -- and would be a step that had no other
`apparent purpose. So this supports what we were just
`discussing.
` Looking at slide 17. Pulling from Patent Owner's
`expert's deposition transcript, Dr. Decker confirmed that
`these oils would have at least some hydrophilic components in
`them. So again, this is again getting at the inherency issue
`that was raised but not necessarily -- but the issue that was
`raised. Excuse me.
` Patent Owner also alleged that Petitioner failed to
`show that the undesired hydrophilic components were
`necessarily separated from the crude sardine oil by the water
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`wash step of Doisaki. This is slide 18 now. Excuse me.
`Again, Petitioner proposed a definition under BRI of
`undesired hydrophilic components as components within an oil
`that's solubilized with water when water is contacted with
`the oil. And so the hydrophilic components that were
`necessarily in the product would have been removed by a water
`washing step.
` Moving to slide 19. In addition to slide 18, 19,
`the water washing step would be expected to remove these
`trace undesired hydrophilic components because Doisaki
`discloses a process that is within the general parameters
`disclosed in the ’360 patent.
` Moving to page 20, Ground 4, the Breivik reference
`was set forth as anticipating claims 22 through 25 with the
`product by process claim and Patent Owner did not dispute
`this ground in its response.
` Moving to 21, Hata anticipates certain claims.
`Again, a lot of the same issues as before.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I have a question really
`quickly.
` MR. SHELTON: Yes.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Ground 4, are you then just
`resting on your petition with respect to Ground 4 because
`even if Patent Owner doesn't dispute the ground you still
`have the burden so you have to make your case?
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. SHELTON: Understood. So, yeah, I would rest
`on that claims 22 through 25 are anticipated for the same
`reasons set forth in the petition and as stated in the
`institution decision.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Okay. And I had one more
`question.
` MR. SHELTON: Sure.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I know that these are -- these
`three claims, or four claims, are the subject of the motion
`to amend. In particular, I think Patent Owner has requested
`to cancel the claims. Is that your understanding as well?
` MR. SHELTON: Correct.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. SHELTON: Slide 21, Hata anticipates again the
`Patent Owner has -- the Petitioner maintains its position set
`forth -- the prima facie position set forth in the petition
`and instead takes this limited time to address the Patent
`Owner's arguments against Hata -- against the instituted
`ground specifically that Petitioner failed to show the crude
`oil sample in Hata necessarily contains the undesired
`hydrophilic components and that aqueous fluid processing step
`necessarily results in separation.
` Again, similar reasons as before with Ground 3.
`There's no other reason on the record to perform these types
`of steps. The expert has confirmed that this is --
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I have another question. I'm
`sorry.
` MR. SHELTON: Yes, go ahead.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I'm reading what you have up in
`the screen on slide 21 and, you know, the gist of it is that
`Petitioner has not shown that the step "necessarily results".
`When I see that language I think of inherency and I guess
`again this goes back to Judge Smith's question earlier, is
`your ground based on inherency that, you know, following all
`the steps of the Hata process you would necessarily get
`separation of the undesired hydrophilic components, or is it
`your contention that Hata expressly teaches that or at least
`what you're relying on in Hata, one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood that Hata expressly teaches that
`limitation?
` MR. SHELTON: Right. So it's -- Petitioner
`acknowledges that explicit -- that the, for example, the
`undesired hydrophilic components is not expressly stated as a
`contaminant. However, our position is that it necessarily would have
`been there, but also our position is that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art who reads this disclosure and sees
`that degumming step or sees an aqueous wash step, they know
`the purpose of why that is there. And as explained by
`Dr. Shahidi, the only reason such a step is to remove
`undesired hydrophilic components. So maybe a little bit
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`between your first and your third option, straddling -- or
`either one of those. So a person of ordinary skill would
`read this and understand that that component was there at the
`same time it is necessarily there. Okay.
` Okay. Moving onto slide 22, Ground 6, again
`Yamanouchi discloses a process that reduces the amount of
`undesired components in a marine oil composition. Here is a
`snippet from Yamanouchi, "Crude fish oil from sardines is
`again washed with water and dehydrated then using
`distillation device the distilled ingredients are obtained."
`So again, it is Petitioner's position that this water wash
`would be understood for what it is and for removing undesired
`hydrophilic components.
` Again, evidence supports -- moving onto slide 23.
`Evidence supports crude sardine oil having undesired
`hydrophilic components. From Dr. Shahidi, "Crude coastal
`sardine oil would have at least some undesired lipophilic
`components and undesired hydrophilic components.”
` JUDGE SMITH: So Counsel, back a little bit to the
`inherency issue. When it says at least some undesired
`hydrophilic components, so this is a little bit of I guess an
`awkward inherency type situation where you're basically
`saying that the product you're working on would inherently
`have -- and part of your argument is that it would inherently
`have these undesired hydrophilic components, but I'm curious
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`whether this is perhaps more akin to like a Titanium Metals
`situation where if you have -- because you are talking about
`a composition whether, you know, 99 percent of the marine
`oil, crude marine oil does have hydrophilic components and
`one percent doesn't, but are you suggesting perhaps that it's
`sufficient to establish an inherency to point to some process
`in which -- or some crude marine oil that would fall within
`that or -- you know, it seems to me that Patent Owner is
`arguing that all crude marine oil has to have undesired
`hydrophilic components? So it's a long question, but I'll
`let you answer it however you'd like.
` MR. SHELTON: Sure. I think we take a few
`different positions. First, based on the references that
`have been provided, the secondary references, the evidentiary
`references based on statements made by both experts our
`position is that there's at least some small amount of
`undesired hydrophilic material in a crude marine oil
`composition. Okay. On top of that, we offer all of these as
`103 as well in that even if that inherency position isn't met
`it would have been obvious to use a crude -- a commercially
`available crude marine oil or some crude marine oil that
`generally in all cases has an undesired hydrophilic
`component. So commercially available crude marine oil
`compositions have some small amount of proteinaceous material
`in them. There's no other reason -- well, that's the reason
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that people do washing steps and people do these other steps
`and that's acknowledged throughout the art that these steps
`are to remove those components.
` So whether or not every single -- you know, take a
`trillion different oils and they all have it or whether or
`not it's some number right under a trillion out of a
`trillion, it's the fact that the commercially available --
`that these products, crude marine oils, have proteinaceous
`material. There's nothing special about the oil in step A of
`claim 1. I think that was on a slide earlier that Patent
`Owner's expert agreed that the oil composition of claim 1 is
`a typical commercially available crude marine oil.
` Okay. I would move then to slide 24. And the
`obviousness grounds were addressed together in the
`institution decision. The Patent Owner raises essentially
`the same argument against each ground. Even if the crude
`oil, as I mentioned just a moment ago, even if the crude oils
`in the primary references are insufficient to support an
`inherency rationale, it would have been obvious to use a
`typical crude marine oil under these procedures. So looking
`at the different procedures taught by various references,
`whether it be Hata or Yamanouchi or Breivik, one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have used -- could have used a typical
`commercial crude marine oil and they would have understood
`that that water washing step or that degumming step would
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`necessarily remove the hydrophilic components.
` There are also -- the art teaches use of aqueous
`fluid processing steps. I don't think that's in question.
`On slide 25, we recite six different procedures; degumming
`with water, degumming prior to distillation, degumming to
`remove proteinaceous compounds and metals, et cetera.
` Moving onto slide 26. A person would have been
`motivated to use this aqueous processing step. It's clear
`that adding a water washing step to, for example, Breivik,
`would have been nothing more than well-known procedures and
`it would have afforded a purer product for then distillation.
`And so this is something that was acknowledged in -- set
`forth in the petition and acknowledged in the institution
`decision.
` Moving onto slide 27. Other aspects of claims 1
`through 7 and 11 through 26 are not disputed by the Patent
`Owner and so I won't raise them here unless you have any
`specific questions about them. I would rather move to claims
`8 through 10 on slide 28.
` And so claims 8 through 10 discuss a sub-equimolar
`amount of base being used in the aqueous fluid processing
`step. Professor Shahidi explained why a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have added this amount of base. And,
`for example, Breivik teaches a more preferred range of three
`to eight percent of free fatty acid and so if marine oil fell
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`outside this range a person would have been motivated to move
`within this range and the most obvious and common way of
`removing free fatty acid is using a strong base like sodium
`hydroxide.
` JUDGE PAULRAJ: Counsel, you're moving into your
`rebuttal time. You're free to use your time as you please.
` MR. SHELTON: Okay. I might use a few just to get
`through slides 8 through 10 (inaudible). So on page 29,
`Patent Owner's rationales are not supported by the record.
`The Patent Owner provides three different -- at least three
`different reasons. The use of native free fatty acids as a
`working fluid was not well characterized in the prior art;
`that Breivik does not reasonably suggest modification of free
`fatty acid content and that Doisaki teaches that the amount
`of FFA has no effect on the distillation process.
` Moving to slide -- that was on slide 29, this
`outline. Sorry.
` JUDGE SMITH: And so Counsel, before you move on --
` MR. SHELTON: Yeah.
` JUDGE SMITH: -- I do have some specific questions
`about Breivik and your reliance on Breivik.
` MR. SHELTON: Sure.
` JUDGE SMITH: One of which is that I'm not clear on
`the motivation at the time of the invention for a person to
`actually reduce the amount or determine the amount of FFA
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00033
`Patent 9,447,360 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`basically at the time it's crude oil before you do the
`washing step to actually reduce the amount of the FFA. Is
`that -- I'm missing -- there's a dot there that's not
`connected for me --
` MR. SHELTON: Okay.
` JUDGE SMITH: -- in terms of Breivik and
`particularly when you get into the discussion of ratios
`because it seems to me part of the pertinent ratio would be
`the amount of FFA that you start with versus the a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
