Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`
` Date: March 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RICETEC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BASF SE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
`
`Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, TINA E. HULSE, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`
` Date: March 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RICETEC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BASF SE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
`
`Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, TINA E. HULSE, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
` INTRODUCTION
`I.
`RiceTec, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting a post-grant
`review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’345 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). BASF SE (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Corrected Preliminary Response. Paper 16 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 18, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply
`(Paper 20).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments
`and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has
`demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims
`challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`A.
`In the Petition and supplemental mandatory notices, Petitioner
`identifies itself, Liechtenstein Group Holding AG, Liechtenstein Group AG,
`Agritec Ventures Corporation, and Makhteshim Agan of North America,
`Inc. d/b/a ADAMA as the real parties-in-interest to this proceeding. Pet. 5;
`Paper 3, 1; Paper 11, 1. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party-in-
`interest. Paper 6, 1.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner states that it is unaware of any related matters. Pet. 5.
`Patent Owner identifies PGR2021-00114, involving U.S. Patent No.
`11,096,346, as related to the ’345 patent. Paper 6, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
`The ’345 Patent
`C.
`The ’345 patent “generally relates to treatment of domestic rice crop
`plants for the control of weeds.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–25. s
`The ’345 patent explains that Acetyl-Coenzyme A carboxylase
`(“ACCase”) enzymes are involved in the fatty acid synthesis pathway in
`plant chloroplasts. Id. at 1:54–56. ACCase enzymes are inhibited by three
`classes of herbicidal active ingredients: aryloxyphenoxypropanoates
`(“FOPs”), cyclohexanediones (“DIMs”), and phenylpyrazolines (“DENs”).
`Id. at 1:62–67. ACCase-inhibitor-tolerance (“AIT”) mutations that are
`tolerant toward DIM and FOP herbicides have been found in monocot weed
`species and maize. Id. at 2:1–3. According to the ’345 patent, it would be
`advantageous to provide rice that is tolerant to DIMs and FOPs. Id. at 2:8–
`10. The specification explains, however, that “[i]n some cases, herbicide-
`tolerance-inducing mutations create a severe fitness penalty in the tolerant
`plant.” Id. at 2:12–14. The ’345 patent therefore states that “there remains a
`need in the art for an AIT rice that also exhibits no fitness penalty.” Id. at
`2:14–16.
`The ’345 patent describes a method for treating rice that includes the
`steps of providing a domestic rice crop plant and at least one ACCase-
`inhibiting FOP herbicide and applying an effective amount of the herbicide
`to the domestic rice crop plant, post-emergence, to create a treated rice plant.
`Id. at 2:21–31. The ’345 patent describes embodiments in which the
`domestic rice crop plant includes and expresses “an endogenous non-
`transfected ACCase nucleic acid whose sequence encodes a multi-
`functional, plastidic ACCase containing a mutation that causes the ACCase
`to be tolerant to the herbicide.” Id. at 2:34–38. The mutation can be
`selected from I1781L, G2096S, and W2027C. Id. at 2:40–42.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–15 of the ’345 patent, of which claim 1
`is the only independent claim. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
`below:
`
`1. A method for treating rice, comprising:
`(A) providing
`(1) a domestic rice crop plant grown from seed, the
`domestic rice crop plant
`(a) comprising and expressing an endogenous
`nontransfected mutant ACCase nucleic acid whose
`sequence encodes a multi-functional, plastidic ACCase
`containing a mutation selected from
`the group
`consisting of I1781L (Am), G2096S (Am), and
`W2027C (Am); and
`to
`tolerance
`(b) possessing a phenotype of
`quizalofop or an ester thereof, fluazifop or an ester
`thereof, clodinafop, clodinafop-propargyl, or diclofop
`or diclofop methyl, wherein said plant exhibits less
`than 10% herbicide injury to a field application of
`at least 70 g AI/Ha1 to 140 g AI/Ha of clodinafop-
`propargyl,
`at least 11 g AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of clodinafop,
`at least 56 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of fluazifop or
`an ester thereof,
`at least 14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of quizalofop or
`an ester thereof,
`or at least 226 g AI/Ha to 540 g AI/Ha of diclofop
`
`
`1 “g AI/Ha” refers to grams of active ingredient per hectare.
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`or diclofop-methyl;2 and
`ACCase-inhibiting
`one
`(2)
`at
`least
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicide comprising quizalofop
`or an ester thereof, fluazifop or an ester thereof, clodinafop,
`clodinafop-propargyl, diclofop, or diclofop-methyl;
`(B) applying an effective amount (measured in grams of
`active ingredient per hectare (g AI/Ha)) of the at least one
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicide to the domestic rice crop
`plant, post-emergence, thereby creating a treated rice plant; and
`(C) growing the treated rice plant;
`wherein the effective amount of the at least one ACCase-
`inhibiting aryloxyphenoxy-propanoate herbicide is
`at least 70 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of clodinafop-propargyl,
`at least 11 g AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of clodinafop,
`at least 56 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of fluazifop or an ester
`thereof,
`at least 14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of quizalofop or an ester
`thereof,
`or at least 226 g AI/Ha to 540 g AI/Ha of diclofop or diclofop-
`methyl.
`Ex. 1001, 271:2–41.
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–15 of the ’345 patent based on the
`grounds set forth in the table below.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–15
`112
`1–15
`112
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Written Description
`Enablement
`
`
`2 We have altered the formatting of the original claims to improve the
`readability of the various dosage ranges for each herbicide.
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`Claims Challenged
`1–3, 7, 11–15
`11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(a)(1)
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Hinga3 or Hinga20134
`Hinga or Hinga2013,
`Anyszka5
`Hinga, Hinga2013, Assure
`II,6 Maneechote7
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dale Shaner, Ph.D. (Ex.
`1002). Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Nilda Roma-Burgos
`(Ex. 2003).
`
`13, 14
`
`103
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`F.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`been a person with a Ph.D. in plant molecular biology, plant physiology,
`agronomy, or the equivalent, with at least 1-2 years of postdoctoral
`experience in herbicide mechanisms of action and weed management.”
`Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Patent Owner contends that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have “at least a PhD in agriculture, weed
`science, or related discipline with at least five years of research experience
`in the same field.” Prelim. Resp. 19.
`We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’
`respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although
`Petitioner states a person of ordinary skill in the art must have one to two
`
`
`3 US 2015/0038331 A1, published Feb. 5, 2015 (Ex. 1003).
`4 US 2013/0023416 A1, published Jan. 24, 2013 (Ex. 1004).
`5 The response of snap bean and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa
`crus-galli) on quizalofop-P-tefuryl, 51 Vegetable Crops Research
`Bulletin 95–102 (January 1999) (Ex. 1006).
`6 Assure II label, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (1999) (Ex. 1005).
`7 Resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in
`sprangletop (Leptochloa chinensis), 53 Weed Science 290–95
`(May 2005) (Ex. 1007).
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition
`requires at least five years of research experience, Patent Owner’s definition
`does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include
`research during a doctoral program). On this record, we find the parties’
`respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of
`ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that
`specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the
`prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not
`shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755
`F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`Moreover, we find on this record that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Burgos are
`both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are
`persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition.
`See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–15; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 5–17.
`G. Claim Construction
`The Board applies the same claim construction standard that would be
`used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2021). Under that standard, claim terms “are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner argues that “endogenous non-transfected mutant” should be
`construed to mean:
`(1) that the nucleic acid is endogenous to the respective cell,
`seed, plant, or plant part and
`(2) that its nucleotide sequence is “nontransfected” in that
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`(a)
`it contains herbicide-tolerance mutation(s) produced
`randomly by a technique involving no step of introducing
`exogenous nucleic acid(s) or nucleic acid analog(s), into a plant
`cell or into other plant material, and
`(b) it contains no mutation(s) produced by a technique involving
`a step of introducing exogenous nucleic acid(s) or nucleic acid
`analog(s), into a plant cell or into other plant material.
`Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1–16). Patent Owner states that it “agrees that
`the claim terms of the ’345 Patent should be given their ordinary and
`customary meaning.” Prelim Resp. 19. We interpret Patent Owner’s
`statement to mean that it agrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`“endogenous non-transfected mutant.”
`Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’345 patent’s
`express construction of the term, and because Patent Owner agrees with
`Petitioner’s construction, we apply that construction in this proceeding.
`We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim
`terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be
`construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999))).
`
` ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`II.
`We must first determine whether the ’345 patent is eligible for post-
`grant review. Section 6(d) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011) (“AIA”) sets forth the post-grant
`review provisions, which apply only to patents subject to the first-inventor-
`to-file provisions of the AIA. AIA § 6(f)(2)(A) (stating the provisions of
`Section 6(d) “shall apply only to patents described in section 3(n)(1)”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`Post-grant reviews are only available for patents that issue from applications
`“that contain[] or contained at any time . . . a claim to a claimed invention
`that has an effective filing date . . . on or after” March 16, 2013. AIA
`§ 3(n)(1). Moreover, “[a] petition for a post-grant review may only be filed
`not later than the date that is 9 months after the date of the grant of the patent
`or of the issuance of a reissue patent (as the case may be).” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 321(c). Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating eligibility for post-
`grant review. See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co., PGR2016-
`00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016).
`The ’345 patent issued on August 24, 2021, which is the day the
`Petition was filed. Ex. 1001, code (45); Pet. 85. Thus, the petition was filed
`less than nine months after the date the patent was granted. Petitioner
`asserts that the ’345 patent is eligible for post-grant review because the
`challenged claims are only entitled to an effective filing date of its actual
`application of December 30, 2016. Ex. 1001, code (22); Pet. 29. Patent
`Owner disagrees and asserts that each of the challenged claims is entitled to
`the benefit of the filing dates of two prior related applications that pre-date
`March 16, 2013. Prelim. Resp. 24–79. As explained below, we agree with
`Petitioner that the challenged claims are eligible for post-grant review.
`Background
`A.
`The ’345 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 15/395,832 (“the
`’832 Application”), filed on December 30, 2016. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22).
`The ’832 Application claims priority to two patent family lines, the
`Neuteboom and Mankin families. The patent family tree provided by the
`parties and annotated by Patent Owner is reproduced below:
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 18; Pet. 31.
`The Neuteboom line is shown on the left, with the Neuteboom PCT
`application, filed on November 13, 2012, highlighted in the red box. The
`Mankin line is on the right, with the Mankin PCT application, filed on
`September 1, 2010, highlighted in the blue box. According to Patent Owner,
`the Neuteboom and Mankin PCT applications are “representative of the
`disclosures of all applications within each respective family, as the
`specifications within each family are identical.” Prelim. Resp. 2 n.1.
`Legal Background
`B.
`To be eligible for post-grant review, Petitioner must show the ’345
`patent is not entitled to claim priority to an application filed before March
`16, 2013. To claim the benefit of an earlier date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119,
`120, 121, or 365, the claimed invention must be disclosed “in the manner
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)”
`in the earlier application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120. In other words, the
`claimed invention must have adequate written description support and be
`enabled in an ancestor application filed before March 16, 2013.
`The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of
`the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that
`the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
`date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the
`specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is satisfied
`when the specification “set[s] forth enough detail to allow a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed and to recognize that
`the inventor invented what is claimed.” Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle &
`Co., 358 F.3d 916, 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`The specification does not have to provide exact or verbatim textual
`support for the claimed subject matter at issue. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93
`F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, “the written description
`requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to
`practice.” Ariad Pharms., 589 F.3d at 1352. “[A]n applicant is not required
`to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future
`embodiment of his invention.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339
`F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, “[a] specification may . . .
`contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without
`describing all species that [the] claim encompasses.” Id.
`Finally, the written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context
`specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad Pharms.,
`598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`1570, 1575; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement
`varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the
`complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. (citing Capon,
`418 F.3d at 1357–1358). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a
`disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”;
`2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or
`technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing
`Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359).
`“Patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis based
`on the disclosure in the priority applications.” Lucent Techs., Inc., v.
`Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). We
`therefore address whether the challenged claims have written description
`support in both the Mankin Line and the Neuteboom Line of the ’345 patent
`family. Because it is dispositive of the issue, we focus on whether the
`priority applications adequately describe the following limitations of claim
`1, which we consider as a whole (as Patent Owner does):
`wherein said plant exhibits less than 10% herbicide
`injury to a field application of at least 70 g AI/Ha to
`140 g AI/Ha of clodinafoppropargyl, at least 11 g
`AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of clodinafop, at least 56 g AI/Ha
`to 140 g AI/Ha of fluazifop or an ester thereof, at least
`14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of quizalofop or an ester
`thereof, or at least 226 g AI/Ha to 540 g AI/Ha of
`diclofop or diclofop-methyl; and;
`(B) applying an effective amount (measured in grams of
`active ingredient per hectare (g AI/Ha)) of the at least one
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicide to the domestic rice crop
`plant, post-emergence, thereby creating a treated rice plant; and;
`wherein the effective amount of the at least one ACCase-
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`inhibiting aryloxyphenoxy-propanoate herbicide is at least 70 g
`AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of clodinafop-propargyl, at least 11 g
`AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of clodinafop, at least 56 g AI/Ha to 140 g
`AI/Ha of fluazifop or an ester thereof, at least 14 g AI/Ha to 140
`g AI/Ha of quizalofop or an ester thereof, or at least 226 g AI/Ha
`to 540 g AI/Ha of diclofop or diclofop-methyl.
`Prelim. Resp. 71. For convenience, we refer to the above limitations
`collectively as the “effective amount” limitation.
`C. Written Description Support in the Mankin Line
`The ’345 patent issued from the ’832 Application, which is a
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 15/156,671 (“the ’671
`Application”), filed on May 17, 2016, which is a continuation of U.S.
`Application No. 13/393,780 (“the ’780 Application”), filed as Application
`No. PCT/US2010/047571 (“the Mankin PCT”) on September 1, 2010.
`Although Petitioner relies on the ’780 Application and Patent Owner relies
`on the Mankin PCT to support their respective arguments, their disclosures
`are substantively the same and we therefore consider any arguments
`regarding one application to apply to the other. Compare Ex. 1013 (’780
`Application) with Ex. 2034 (Mankin PCT). To avoid confusion in
`discussing the parties’ arguments, we refer to both the ’780 Application and
`the Mankin PCT as “the Mankin Application.”
`Petitioner asserts the Mankin Application fails to describe the
`“effective amount” limitation for any of the recited herbicides. Pet. 40–43.
`Petitioner notes the Mankin Application only mentions quizalofop three
`times: to state quizalofop is a “fops” herbicide, to identify quizalofop as a
`commercially available ACCase inhibitor herbicide, and to state quizalofop
`has isomers. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 237 (Table 1),
`248). According to Petitioner, this “scant disclosure” of quizalofop in the
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`Mankin Application “does not demonstrate that the inventors possessed or
`envisioned treating post-emergence rice plants containing the G2096S
`ACCase mutation with the specific amount of 14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of
`quizalofop herbicide causing less than 10% injury to the rice plant, as
`covered by [claim 1].” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 90). Similarly,
`Petitioner argues the generic listing of fluazifop, clodinafop, and diclofop in
`Table 1 among a list of commercially available herbicides does not provide
`adequate written description support for the “effective amount” limitation.
`Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 248, Table 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91). Regarding
`clodinafop-propargyl, Petitioner asserts that although Figure 17 of the
`Mankin Application teaches applying the herbicide at 56 g AI/Ha, that
`amount is less than the claimed amount of at least 70 g AI/Ha to 140 g
`AI/Ha and the injury rate to the I1781L ACCase mutant rice is higher than
`the recited less than 10% injury rate of the claims. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 94; Ex. 1013, Fig. 17).
`Patent Owner argues the Mankin Application teaches applying an
`effective amount of FOP herbicides to domestic rice crops to produce a
`treated rice plant. Prelim. Resp. 72 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 13, 233). Patent
`Owner asserts the Mankin Application discloses an example of applying an
`effective amount of the DIM herbicide cycloxydim to rice crops. Id. at 72–
`73 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶ 291). Accordingly, Patent Owner claims that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art reading the Mankin Application “would have been
`able to arrive at the specific ranges of clodinafop-propargyl, clodinafop,
`fluazifop or an ester thereof, quizalofop or an ester thereof, or diclofop or
`diclofop-methyl, claimed in the ’345 Patent based on its knowledge in the
`art.” Id. at 73. Moreover, Patent Owner argues the “effective amount” of an
`herbicide is a well-known concept to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`that person “would have understood that the effective ranges of herbicides
`include those known in the art and indicated on the labels.” Id. (citing Ex.
`2003 ¶¶ 44–45, 51–54, 60–65). Patent Owner further argues “[t]here is no
`dispute—and neither RiceTec nor Dr. Shaner suggest anything to the
`contrary—that the numerical ranges claimed in the ’345 patent are in fact
`‘effective amounts’ as reflected in the labels for each of the claimed FOPs
`(or otherwise known to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]).” Id. at 73–74.
`Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary artisan’s understanding of
`the effective amount ranges “would not have been critical to the invention of
`the ’345 Patent” and that “it is unimportant what specific ranges of
`herbicides are used, so long as the claimed herbicide effectively kills
`problematic weeds and causes less than 10% herbicide injury to the claimed
`ACCase mutant rice plants.” Id. at 74. As such, Patent Owner argues a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the inventors
`of the ’345 Patent had possession of the claimed herbicide ranges without
`explicit disclosure in Mankin.” Id. at 74–75.
`We find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the “effective amount”
`limitation of each of the challenged claims is not adequately supported by
`the Mankin Application. Although the Mankin Application does generally
`describe herbicidal compositions that “comprise an herbicidal effective
`amount” of at least one ACCase herbicide (Ex. 2034 ¶ 233), that generic
`disclosure is not sufficient written description support for the specific
`effective amounts recited in the claims. Indeed, we agree with Petitioner
`that the Mankin Application does not disclose any effective amounts of any
`of the recited herbicides within the claimed ranges, let alone one that causes
`less than 10% injury. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90, 91. 94; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 237
`(Table 1), 248, Fig. 17.
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertion that written
`description is satisfied because the Mankin Application’s disclosure of an
`herbicide tolerance study for a DIM herbicide would have led a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to the specific effective amounts of the FOP
`herbicides recited in the claims. Prelim. Resp. 72–73. Nor are we persuaded
`that there is adequate written description support because a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been able to ascertain the effective
`amounts for each herbicide based on the knowledge in the art. Id. at 73.
`That is not the test for written description. “It is not sufficient for purposes
`of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when
`combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to
`modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to
`disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
`1997). Rather, “[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed
`features.” Id.
`We also note that the dose ranges on the herbicide labels provided in
`Appendix F of Dr. Burgos’s Declaration do not overlap with the claimed
`ranges for clodinafop-propargyl, diclofop-methyl, or fluazifop-p-butyl. In
`the chart below, we have reproduced the data from Appendix F for those
`herbicides and added a column with the claimed dose range:
`ACCase
`Formulation Crop
`Weed or
`Dose(s)
`herbicide
`Crop
`in
`Situation
`App’x
`F
`(g
`AI/Ha)
`56–70
`
`Claimed
`Dose
`Range
`(g
`AI/Ha)
`
`Clodinafop-
`propargyl
`
`Discover NG
`0.5 SEC
`
`Wheat
`
`70–140
`
`Echinochloa
`and other
`more
`grasses
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`ACCase
`Formulation Crop
`herbicide
`
`Diclofop-
`methyl
`
`Hoelon 3EC Wheat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fluazifop-
`p-butyl
`
`Fusilade DX
`2EC
`
`Broadleaf
`crops
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dose(s)
`in
`App’x
`F
`(g
`AI/Ha)
`560
`
`Claimed
`Dose
`Range
`(g
`AI/Ha)
`
`226–540
`
`1,120
`
`
`
`156
`
`56–140
`
`420
`
`
`
`Weed or
`Crop
`Situation
`
`Italian
`ryegrass, 1-
`3 leaf
`Other grass,
`up to 4 leaf
`Generally
`not to
`exceed 4-
`leaf grass
`Large
`weeds,
`tolerant
`species
`
`Thus, relative to the doses taught in Appendix F, the claimed dose range is
`higher for clodinafop-propargyl and lower for diclofop-methyl and
`fluazifop-p-butyl. Although Dr. Burgos explains that herbicide labels
`generally have a low range for small weed seedlings and a high range for the
`highest level of control (Ex. 2003 ¶ 63), she does not explain the differences
`between the specific claimed ranges and the herbicide labels in Appendix F.
`Moreover, it is unclear whether a person of ordinary skill in the art reading
`an herbicide label would know whether that dosage range would result in
`less than 10% herbicide injury to the treated rice plant, as required by the
`claims. Indeed, Figure 17 of the Mankin Application suggests that applying
`clodinafop-propargyl at 56 g AI/Ha, fluazifop-p-butyl at 175 g AI/Ha, and
`diclofop-methyl at 840 g AI/Ha—which are all within the dose ranges on
`Appendix F— all result in greater than 10% injury to the treated I1781L rice
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`plant. Ex. 1013, Fig. 17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–95. Thus, on this record, we are
`not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the doses on
`the herbicide labels disclosed in Appendix F would have understood the
`inventors were in possession of the “effective amount” limitation of the
`claimed herbicides.
`Finally, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`specific claimed effective amount ranges were not “critical to the invention”
`and “it is unimportant what specific ranges of herbicides are used, so long as
`the claimed herbicide effectively kills problematic weeds and causes less
`than 10% herbicide injury to the claimed ACCase mutant rice plants.”
`Prelim. Resp. 74. We note that Patent Owner amended the original claims to
`add the “effective amount” limitation and then argued that the cited
`references “do not teach or suggest a method of treating a rice crop plant,
`post emergence, with the recited effective amounts of
`aryloxyphenoxypropoanoate herbicides, let alone disclose or suggest a
`method wherein the effective amount of the recited
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicides causes less than 10% injury to the rice
`plant in field applications.” See Ex. 1047 (Part 2), 461, 467. Moreover,
`Patent Owner admits that “it was the ‘herbicide causes less than 10% injury
`to the rice plant in field applications’ limitation . . . that distinguished the
`claims from the prior art and led to allowance.” Sur-Reply 6. As explained
`above, we consider the “less than 10% injury” together with the effective
`amounts of herbicides to constitute the “effective amount” limitation (as
`Patent Owner does in its Preliminary Response, see Prelim. Resp. 71). Thus,
`on this record, we are not persuaded that the “effective amount” limitation is
`“unimportant.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`Moreover, Patent Owner cites In re Peters, 723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) for the proposition that “no explicit disclosure is required for
`uncritical known elements.” Prelim. Resp. 75. We disagree that Peters
`applies to the facts of this case. In Peters, the Board rejected the applicant’s
`broadening reissue claim for lack of support in the original disclosure. The
`applicant sought to broaden the claim by deleting a structural limitation
`directed to a specific shape disclosed in the specification. The Federal
`Circuit reversed the Board’s decision because it “erroneously confined
`Peters to the specific embodiment disclosed in the original patent.” Id. at
`893. Thus, in Peters, the Federal Circuit found the Board erred by limiting
`the applicant’s broad claims to a specific embodiment in the specification.
`Here, we find the Mankin Application lacks written description support for
`Patent Owner’s narrower limitation that recites specific ranges of effective
`amounts of each herbicide. Thus, we find Peters is inapposite.
`We find Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA
`Medical Center v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to be
`instructive. The patent at issue claimed a method comprising administering
`a drug “at a dosage up to 1.5 mg/kg/day.” Id. at 1054. The Federal Circuit
`found the patent at issue was not entitled to the priority date of an earlier
`provisional application because the provisional application failed to describe
`the required dosage. The patentee argued the provisional’s disclosure of a
`rat study sufficiently described the recited dosage because a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would be able to calculate the corresponding human
`dosage” according to a conversion method known in the art. Id. at 1057–58.
`The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, stating “proof of priority requires
`written description disclosure in the parent application, not simply
`information and inferences drawn from uncited references.” Id. at 1058.
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`Patent 11,096,345 B2
`Similarly, here, Patent Owner suggests a person of ordinary skill in the art
`could determine the “effective amount” of the recited herbicides through
`uncited herbicide labels, which is insufficient to satisfy the written
`description requirement.
`Having considered the parties’ respective arguments and evidence
`presented, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the Mankin
`Application does not adequately support the “effective amount” limitation o
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
