UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`BUTAMAXTM ADVANCED BIOF UELS LLC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`GEVO, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2013—00539
`
`Patent 8,273,565
`
`PETITIONER BUTAMAX'S REPLY TO PATEEJT OWNER RESPQNSE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`BUTAMAXTM ADVANCED BIOF UELS LLC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`GEVO, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2013—00539
`
`Patent 8,273,565
`
`PETITIONER BUTAMAX'S REPLY TO PATEEJT OWNER RESPQNSE
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... l
`
`II.
`
`The Board's construction of the claim terms at issue must apply .................. l
`
`III.
`
`The '5 65 patent is not entitled to the priority dates of the Provisionals ......... 2
`
`IV.
`
`Flint anticipates claims 1—4, 6-8, and 11-19 ofthe ‘565 patent ...................... 4
`
`The '5 65 patent merely claims combinations of known and practiced features
`
`that produce known and predictable results ................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Anthony
`
`with Puig and Ojeda to reach the invention of the ‘5 65 patent ............ 5
`
`B.
`
`A POSA would have read Puig to teach the degradation of
`
`endogenous Fe—S cluster proteins and not heterologous
`
`DHAD ................................................................................................... 8
`
`C.
`
`A POSA reading Ojeda would have been motivated to
`
`inactivate GRX3
`
`and/or GRX4 proteins
`
`to
`
`increase
`
`expression of heterologous DHAD .................................................... 12
`
`D.
`
`Claims 5 and 9 are obvious over the cited references ........................ 13
`
`VI.
`
`The ‘921 application has no bearing on the obviousness of the '565 patent
`
`claims ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`VII.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPRZOl3-00539
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ‘565 patent claims a recombinant yeast microorganism and a method of
`
`producing isobutanol using such a yeast. The Petition and supporting declaration
`
`demonstrate that the claimed yeast and method is neither novel nor nonobvious.
`
`And Gevo‘s response offers no evidence to the contrary. Significantly, Gevo's
`
`assertions rely entirely on attorney argument and are devoid of validation or
`
`confirmation from a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSA"), either through
`
`expert opinion or citation to scientific literature. Because Gevo's response is
`
`lacking, the Board should confirm its initial findings of unpatentability and cancel
`
`the claims-at—issue.
`
`II.
`
`The Board's construction of the claim terms at issue must apply
`
`Gevo did not challenge the Board's construction of the claim terms at issue
`
`in its Decision to Institute. Accordingly, those constructions should control. The
`
`term ”inactivated"
`
`should be construed to mean lacking all
`
`activity or
`
`functionality. Paper 9, p. 10. In addition,
`
`independent claim 1 and dependent
`
`claims 2—16 and 19 must encompass at least the yeast genera and species recited in
`
`dependent claims 17 and 18. Ici, p. 12. And finally, claim 1, and claims 2-10 and
`
`13—19, which depend from claim 1, must encompass at least DHAD localized in
`
`the cytosol or the mitochondria. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`III. The '565 patent is not entitled to the priority dates of the Provisionals
`
`Gevo fails to demonstrate that the '952 and ‘209 provisional applications
`
`(the "Provisionals") convey, with reasonable clarity to a POSA,
`
`that Gevo
`
`possessed yeast having inactivated GRX3 or GRX4 proteins, i.e., genes lacking in
`
`all activity, resulting from insertions, deletions, or combinations of insertions and
`
`deletions of nucleotides of the corresponding gene. See Paper 9, pp. 15—16.
`
`As an initial matter, Gevo provides no expert opinion to demonstrate how a
`
`POSA would interpret
`
`the disclosures
`
`in the Provisionals. Gevo's
`
`flawed
`
`arguments rest entirely on attorney commentary and consist mostly of reciting
`
`paragraphs from the Provisionals, the subject matter of which has already been
`
`considered by the Board and rejected as not providing sufficient written
`
`description. Id. at pp. 13—16.
`
`Butamax’s expert, Dr. Thiele, has already made clear-——and the Board
`
`agreed—that references in the Provisionals to "attenuate[ing]" or "reduc[ing]"
`
`GRX3 and GRX4 genes do not support the scope of claim 1. BMX1002 at ‘ll29 and
`
`Paper 9, pp. 14-15. Gevo does not contend that a POSA would interpret these
`
`disclosures differently. Additionally, as Dr. Thiele explained—and the Board
`
`agreed— that disclosures in the Provisionals of complete deletion of the GRX3
`
`and GRX4 genes do not provide sufficient written description for the broad scope
`
`of the '565 patent claims. BMX1002 at 11927-33 and Paper 9, p. 15-16. Again,
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`Gevo does not provide any support from a POSA as to a different understanding
`
`of the scope of the challenged claims.
`
`Tellingly, Gevo did not cite to a single paragraph in the Provisionals that
`
`describes inactivated GRX3 and GRX4 proteins resulting from the partial deletion
`
`of the corresponding genes,
`
`i.e., deletion of one or more, but
`
`less than all,
`
`nucleotides, or insertion of one or more nucleotides. That is because it cannot.
`
`That disclosure does not exist. BMX1002 at i[$37-47 The only paragraphs that
`
`Gevo cites are unrelated to the GRX3 or GRX4 gene specifically. Paper 19, pp. 7-
`
`12. And as Dr. Thiele explained, a POSA would not understand these disclosures
`
`to provide any description of the type, location, or size of a deletion, insertion, or
`
`combination of both, that would result in the full scope of an inactivated GRX3 or
`
`GRX4 gene as recited in claim 1. BMX1002 at fi49.
`
`Most of the paragraphs cited by Gevo were already considered and rejected
`
`by the Board as not providing written description for the claims of the '565 patent.
`
`See, ag. 1F] [0028], [0067], [0068], [00154], and [00156] of the '952 provisional
`
`and W] [0073], [0074], [00178], [00180], and [00181] of the '209 provisional.
`
`Merely repeating phrases like "deletions or insertions of single or multiple
`
`residues in a polynucleotide," "an insertion, or a deletion of part or all of a gene,"
`
`or ”alteration, disruption, deletion or knocking-out of a gene or polynucleotide"
`
`does nothing to convey to a POSA that Gevo knew which insertions or
`
`fl
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`deletions—let
`
`alone possessed such insertions or deletions—that would
`
`completely inactivate GRX3 or GRX4. Additional paragraphs
`
`from the
`
`Provisionals upon which Gevo relies merely restate
`
`that
`
`the
`
`claimed
`
`microorganisms can comprise a disruption or knockout of a gene and that the
`
`techniques for creating such microorganisms were known. See W [00154],
`
`[00156], [00213], [00229], and [00258]-[00263] of the '952 provisional and W
`
`[00244], [00260] and [00289]—[00295] of the '209 provisional. But as explained
`
`above, in the Petition and in Dr. Thiele's declaration, this is not enough.
`
`The Petition and Dr. Thiele‘s declaration amply demonstrate that
`
`the
`
`Provisionals do not provide written description support for claims 1-19. Petition,
`
`pp. 13-24 and BMX1002 at 1]][24-49. And Gevo has not refuted that showing: its
`
`repetitive and unsupported response fails to overcome the Board‘s initial finding
`
`that the effective filing date of '565 patent is no earlier than November 24, 2010.
`
`Gevo's response should not disturb the Board's conclusion.
`
`IV.
`
`Flint anticipates claims 1—4, 6-8, and 11-19 of the '565 patent
`
`Gevo does not dispute that Flint discloses each and every limitation of
`
`claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11—19 of the '565 patent. Instead, Gevo merely attempts to
`
`remove Flint as prior art by asserting that the '565 patent is entitled to a priority
`
`date earlier than November 24, 2010. Paper 19, p. 15. But as described above,
`
`Gevo's argument fails. Consequently, Flint undeniably qualifies as prior art to the
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`'565 patent under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) and anticipates claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-19 of
`
`the '565 patent.
`
`V.
`
`The ‘565 patent merely claims combinations of known and practiced
`features that preduee known and predictable results
`
`The Petition and Dr. Thiele's unchallenged declaration show where the prior
`
`art discloses each and every element of the claims. Petition, pp. 34—43 and
`
`BMX1002 at
`
`€[1l73—99. And Gevo has no credible argument to the contrary.
`
`Instead, Gevo—relying entirely on attorney argument—attempts to attack prior art
`
`references individually, while ignoring the combination of art and the knowledge
`
`ofa POSA at the effective filing date ofthe '565 patent.
`
`A.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Anthony with
`Puig and Ojeda to reach the invention of the '565 patent
`
`Gevo's argument that the combined teachings of Anthony, Puig, and Ojeda
`
`do not render claims 1—4, 6-8 and 11-19 obvious is legally flawed and unsupported
`
`by validation or confirmation from a POSA or citation to scientific literature.
`
`Gevo misunderstands the law when it argues that a POSA should have
`
`understood from Anthony alone that the GRX3 and/or GRX4 genes should be
`
`inactivated to increase the activity of DHAD. Paper 19, pp. 15-16. As Dr. Thiele
`
`explained, and the Board determined,
`
`it is Anthony in combination with other
`
`references that renders the claims-at-issue obvious. BMX1002 at flfi73-99 and
`
`Paper 9, p. 22. Gevo ignores controlling precedent when it attacks individual
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`references and ignores the combination of the teachings in the prior art. As the
`
`Federal Circuit has explained, "[i]n determining obviousness, references are read
`
`not in isolation but for what they fairly teach in combination with; the prior art as a
`
`whole." Banner Eng’g Corp. v. Tri—Tronics Co. Inc,
`
`11. F.3d 1071 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993); see also In re Merck & Co, Inc, 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`The Board correctly concluded that a POSA would have combined the
`
`teachings of Anthony, Puig, and Ojeda because they are each directed to the
`
`characterization and/or
`
`role of Fe—S cluster proteins in yeast metabolism.
`
`BMX1002 at ‘]74; Paper 9, pp. 19-22. Anthony identifies recombinant approaches
`
`to increase the activity of DHAD to increase isobutanol production in yeast.
`
`BMX1005 at fi‘l[[0003], [0006], [0013], and [0074]—[0075] and BMX1002 at ‘[75.
`
`Specifically, Anthony teaches that the activity of recombinant DHAD is limited by
`
`the availability of Fe-S clusters in the cell. BMX1005 at fi]‘][0074]-[0075] and
`
`BMX1002 at 1]75. A POSA would have understood that Anthony teaches the
`
`reduction of the expression of one or more endogenous Fe-S proteins in a
`
`recombinant yeast to improve the activity of recombinant DHAD. BMX1005 at
`
`Tl][0006],
`
`[0009],
`
`[0038],
`
`[0074j-[0075],
`
`[0098],
`
`[0112],
`
`[0151]—[0156], and
`
`[0159]-[0164], Examples 1 and 3; and BMX1002 at 1W7.
`
`Gevo‘s contention that Anthony does not provide direction as to which of
`
`the Fe—S proteins should be reduced is incorrect. See Paper 19, p. 16. In fact,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IT’R2013—00539
`
`Anthony describes exemplary endogenous Fe-S cluster proteins that may be
`
`targets for reduced expression. Anthony also teaches ways to reduce expression of
`
`such Fe—S cluster proteins, including "gene disruption, deletion or inactivation".
`
`BMX1005 at fil[0053] and BMX1002 at ‘fl77. As Dr. Thiele explained, a POSA
`
`wanting to increase DHAD activity by reducing expression of endogenous Fe-S
`
`cluster proteins, as explained in Anthony, would have considered alternative
`
`means to reduce expression of such proteins and would have turned to Puig.
`
`BMX1002 at fll78. Gevo's argument does not disturb this conclusion.
`
`Puig teaches that the Cth2 protein promotes targeted mRNA degradation,
`
`reducing accumulation of mRNAs encoding endogenous Fe-S cluster proteins.
`
`BMX1006, pp. 99-101, 103-104, 107—108, Suppl. Table 82; BMX1002 at
`
`|79. A
`
`POSA reading Puig would have understood that reduction of Fe—S cluster proteins
`
`via Cth2 leads to increased availability of Fe—S clusters. BMX1002 at fJ80. A
`
`POSA would have understood that a heterologous DHAD—constructed without
`
`the Cth2 target site—would not be targeted by Cth2. Thus, a POSA would have
`
`considered Puig's Cth2-mediated reduced expression of endogenous Fe—S proteins
`
`to be a beneficial approach to reducing the competition with heterologous DHAD
`
`for Fe—S clusters as taught by Anthony. BMX1002 at {‘80. Further, Puig teaches
`
`that the S. cerevisiae transcription factors Aftl and Aft2 activate transcription of
`
`the Cth2 gene. BMX1006, p. 1.00 and Suppl. Fig. 82. Thus, a POSA looking to
`
`7’
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`increase the activity of recombinant DHAD would have been motivated to
`
`increase the expression of Cth2 through the activation of the transcriptional
`
`regulators Aftl and Aft2. BMX1002 at filSl.
`
`Ojeda teaches that cells lacking er3 and/or er4 have increased Aft
`
`protein activation. BMX1007, p. 17661—63. Therefore, a POSA reading Ojeda
`
`would have understood that decreasing or eliminating expression of GRX3 and/or
`
`GRX4 would lead to increased activation of Aft proteins. BMXlOOZ at flSl.
`
`A POSA reading Anthony, Puig, and Ojeda in combination would have
`
`been motivated to delete GRX3 and/or GRX4 to increase the activation of Aftl or
`
`Aft2 with the expectation that it would result in increasing expression of Cth2,
`
`which in turn would result in decreased expression of endogenous Fe—S cluster
`
`proteins and increased availability of Fe-S clusters. Id. As a result, a POSA would
`
`have then expected to improve the activity of recombinant DHAD by increasing
`
`the Fe-S clusters available to it. The Board agrees. Paper No. 9, p. 22.
`
`B.
`
`A POSA would have read Puig to teach the degradation of
`endogenous Fe-S cluster proteins and not heterologous DHAD
`
`Gevo‘s contention—in the form of attorney argument only—that Puig does
`
`not distinguish between Cth2 binding to heterologous or endogenous DHAD
`
`mRNA misunderstands and misinterprets the knowledge and routine practice of a
`
`skilled practitioner in the field of eukaryotic recombinant gene expression, as well
`
`as the totality of Puig‘s teachings.
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPRZOl3—00539
`
`Gevo argues—without
`
`the support of any expert opinion or scientific
`
`literature—that Dr. Thiele provides no scientific support for his contention that (l)
`
`Cth2 would only bind to endogenous DHAD, not exogenous DHAD mRNA and
`
`(2) Cth2 would not bind the exogenous mRNA even if it contains a 3' untranslated
`
`region ("3' UTR") that is different from the 3' UTR of endogenous DHAD. Paper
`
`19, pp.l8—l9. But Gevo's arguments show its fundamental misunderstanding of
`
`Dr. Thiele’s declaration and the knowledge of a POSA prior to the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the '565 patent.
`
`Dr. Thiele's reading of Puig—challenged only by attorney argument—is
`
`that
`
`it
`
`taught a POSA about Cth2-mediated targeted mRNA degradation of
`
`endogenous Fe—S cluster proteins. BMX1002 at f[[1180 and 105. As Dr. Thiele
`
`explained, a POSA would have had a reason to apply the teachings of Puig to
`
`construct recombinant DHAD—using standard techniques for recombinant protein
`
`expression—which would be encoded by mRNA that
`
`lacks the Cth2—mRNA
`
`binding sequence found in the 3' UTR of mRNA that encodes endogenous DHAD.
`
`Id. This is because a POSA would have wanted to ensure that increased Cth2
`
`activation would not target the recombinant DHAD. Id. In fact, the potentially
`
`deleterious effect of using endogenous 3' UTRs for heterologous gene expression
`
`was well-recognized in the art. See Sambrook, et 61]., Molecular Cloning: A
`
`Laboratory Manual 16.7 (2nd ed. 1987) (BMX1025). For example, Sambrook
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`teaches that "sequences within the 3' noncoding regions of eukaryotic genes may
`
`play a role in mRNA stability" and "to obtain maximal expression of a cloned
`
`gene" it may "be necessary to remove the nucleotide sequences 3' of the
`
`termination codon." Id. Thus, Dr. Thiele's opinion that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated, using standard techniques, to construct a recombinant DHAD lacking
`
`the endogenous 3' UTR and/or Cth2 target sites is substantiated by the prior art
`
`and the knowledge and common practice in the field.
`
`Furthermore, Puig explicitly teaches the mechanism by which Cth2 targets
`
`endogenous mRNAs. For example, Puig teaches that Cth2 binds to AU—rich
`
`elements, or ARES in 3' UTRs of targeted mRNAs. BMX1006, pp. 102 and 107-8.
`
`Indeed, Puig explicitly teaches the nucleotide sequences of ARES that are targeted
`
`by Cth2. Id. Furthermore, Puig teaches that the 3'UTR of endogenous DHAD
`
`(ILV3) contains putative ARES targeted by Cth2. Id. at p. 104, Table 1. Thus, a
`
`POSA would have understood, based on the clear and explicit teachings of Puig,
`
`that ARE sequences found in the 3' UTR of endogenous DHAD are likely targets
`
`for Cth2 binding and regulation.
`
`Gevo takes the extraordinary position that a POSA's knowledge is limited to
`
`only the four corners of a reference and must not be impacted by any other
`
`knowledge of the art or creative thinking. See, e.g., Paper 19, p. 18. But the law
`
`has never required a POSA to be so limited. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`the opposite:
`
`To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`
`known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary
`
`to look to
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. To facilitate review, this analysis should be
`
`made explicit. But it need not seek out precise teachings directed to
`
`the challenged claim's specific subject matter, for a court can consider
`
`the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would employ.
`
`See KSR [141’] Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 401 (2007). The Petition and Dr.
`
`Thiele explained how a POSA would have considered Puig, and the inferences
`
`and creative steps a POSA would have applied when reading the combination of
`
`Anthony, Puig, and Ojeda. BMX1002 at ifi‘ll73-99. As Dr. Thiele explained, a
`
`POSA looking to express heterologous DHAD in a yeast expressing Cth2 would
`
`have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success,
`
`to express a
`
`recombinant DHAD that does not contain the same 3' UTR as endogenous DHAD.
`
`BMX1002 at iW80 and 105. Further, a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`ensure that the 3' UTR of the recombinant DHAD does not contain the known
`
`binding sites of Cch, i.e., ARES, as taught by Puig. Id. Such techniques were well
`
`understood and routinely practiced in the art prior to the earliest effective filing
`
`date ofthe '565 patent. See BMX1025, p. 16.7.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`C.
`
`A POSA reading Ojeda would have been motivated to inactivate
`GRX3
`and/or GRX4 proteins
`to
`increase
`expression of
`heterologous DHAD
`
`Gevo's argument
`
`that Ojeda teaches away from a yeast expressing
`
`recombinant DHAD that comprises inactivated GRX3 and/or GRX4 as claimed in
`
`the '565 patent fails for the same reason its arguments regarding Puig fail—Gevo
`
`fundamentally misunderstands and misapplies the knowledge and routine practice
`
`of a skilled practitioner in the field of eukaryotic recombinant gene expression.
`
`For the prior art
`
`to teach away,
`
`it must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`
`discourage the solution claimed," which the combination of Anthony, Puig and
`
`Ojeda does not do. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`What Gevo‘s argument misses is that Ojeda's assays for enzymatic activity
`
`used "total cellular extracts" and did not account for the amount of aconitase
`
`protein expressed in the tested cells. See BMX1007, p. 17667, Figure 10 caption.
`
`Puig explicitly teaches that aconitase contains ARES in its 3' UTR and is therefore
`
`a target for Cth2-mediated degradation. BMX1006, Table 1. Because deletion of
`
`GRX3 and GRX4 leads to increased Aft activation and subsequent increased Cth2
`
`expression, a POSA would have expected a decrease of endogenous aconitase
`
`expression, and a consequent reduction in aconitase activity. BMX1002 at :11102. It
`
`is this decreased aconitase protein level that leads to the lower aconitase activity in
`
`Ojeda‘s cells. Id. So Ojeda's result of decreased aconitase activity in GRX3 and
`
`1')
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`GRX4 double mutants was entirely expected to a POSA in view of the teachings
`
`of Ojeda and Puig. BMX1002 at 11111100405.
`
`As stated in Dr. Thiele's declaration, a POSA would have known that Cth2
`
`binds to 3' UTRs in endogenous Fe—S cluster mRNAs, leading to their decay. Id. at
`
`iW79 and 102. But, significantly, a POSA would have known—using standard
`
`techniques for recombinant protein expression—how to construct recombinant
`
`DHAD that would be encoded by mRNA having a 3' UTR that is not bound by
`
`Cth2. Id. at $180, 103, 105; BMX1025, p. 16.7. Thus, a POSA would have been
`
`motivated, and able, to construct an overexpressed heterologous DHAD enzyme
`
`that would not be degraded by an increased expression of the Aft—regulated Cth2,
`
`and that was able to take advantage of the increased number of Fe—S clusters
`
`available to it after
`
`the endogenous Fe-S cluster proteins were degraded.
`
`BMX1002 at $1180 and 103. In sum, as explained by Dr. Thiele and Petitioner, a
`
`POSA reading Anthony in view of Puig and Ojeda would not be taught away from
`
`arriving at the claimed invention. BMX1002 at fi‘fllOO—lOS and Petition, pp. 43-46.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 5 and 9 are obvious over the cited references
`
`Gevo has provided no additional argument—not even attorney argument—
`
`to explain why claims 5 and 9 of the '565 patent are not obvious. As such, as set
`
`forth in the Petition and Dr. Thiele's declaration, the Board should find claim
`
`Sobvious over Anthony, Puig, Ojeda, and Li. Petition, pp. 47—48; BMX1002 at
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`$93—94. In addition, the Board should find claim 9 obvious over Anthony, Puig,
`
`Ojeda and van Maris. Petition, pp. 49-51; BMX1002 at ¥EDS—97.
`
`VE.
`
`The '921 application has no bearing on the obviousness 0f the '565
`patent claims
`
`Gevo brings U.S. Appl. No. 13/837,921 ("the '921 application") to the
`
`Board‘s attention but fails to articulate any factual basis or reason as to why it
`
`might be relevant to this proceeding. Gevo asserts—based on selective citations to
`
`the '921 application—that the '921 application claims a method of increasing the
`
`activity of a Fe-S cluster protein by inactivating GRX3, and that the Fe-S cluster
`
`protein is DHAD. However, as is clear from Gevo's citations, the claims to DHAD
`
`and to GRX3 are separate dependent claims. Thus, the '921 application does not
`
`disclose an invention that covers the scope of the '565 patent.
`
`Regardless, the only relevant standard in determining the patentability of
`
`the '565 patent claims is whether the claims would have been obvious to a POSA
`
`at the effective filing date of the '565 patent; not what Petitioner may or may not
`
`assert in an unrelated application. Petitioner's statements in the specification of the
`
`'921 application are pertinent to the invention of the '921 application and have no
`
`legal bearing on the patentability of Gevo's '565 patent claims. Dr. Thiele has
`
`clearly demonstrated that the claims of the ’5 65 patent would have been obvious to
`
`a POSA at the effective filing date of the '565 patent. And Gevo's reliance on
`
`statements in an unrelated application are a futile attempt to divert the Board's
`
`l4
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013—00539
`
`attention away from the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`Gevo's response—based entirely on attorney argument, without any support
`
`from an expert or scientific literature—does not change the fact that claims 1-9
`
`and 11-19 of the '565 patent are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over the
`
`prior art. The Petition,
`
`supported by Dr. Thiele, amply demonstrates the
`
`unpatentability of the '565 patent claims. The claims should be cancelled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`
`“D
`
`
`
`erling, Ph.D.
`Deborah
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner Butamax
`Registration No. 62,732
`
`Date: July 29, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2013-00539
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.6 e 42.105 a
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`the above-captioned "Petitioner's
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Response" was electronically served in its entirety on July
`
`29, 2014, upon the following:
`
`
`IPR2013 -00532@,coolev.com
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Suite 700
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Patent owners correspondence
`address of recordfor
`US. Patent No. 8, 2 73, 565
`
`Date: July 29, 2014
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`
`Registration No. 62,732
`
`Washington, D.C.20005—3934
`
`(202) 371-2600
`
`1884855_1.DOCX
`
`16
`
`
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
