throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Examiner:
`
`Susan Tran
`
`Group Art Unit: 1615
`
`Docket:
`
`512-53 DIV/
`CONIIIR.CE
`
`Dated:
`
`February 22, 2013
`
`Applicant:
`
`SerialNo.:
`
`Ashley, Robert
`
`13/277,789
`
`Confinnation No: 4179
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`October 20, 2011
`
`Methods of
`Treating Acne
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132
`
`Sir:
`
`I, Vasant Manna, am a Senior Medical Advisor I flroject Leader at Galdenna
`1.
`R&D Inc., the assignee of the instant application. I am a medical doctor with a
`specialty in dennatology. My curriculum vitae is attached.
`
`I am familiar with the prosecution history of the instant application. I have
`2.
`reviewed the following references cited in the application: US 6,365,623
`( .. Perricone") and US 6,455,583 (''Pflugfelder'').
`
`Meibomian glands are sebaceous glands that are located on the rim of the
`3.
`eyelids. These glands are responsible for the supply to the eye of sebum, an oily
`substance that, inter alia, prevents evaporation of the eye's tear film.
`
`Meibomian glands do not appear anywhere in the body except on the rim of
`4.
`the eyelids, and have no function outside of the eye. Meibomian glands are
`anatomically and functionally organs of the eye.
`
`Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
`v.
`Galderma Laboratories, Inc.
`IPR2015-__
`Exhibit 1072
`
`Exh. 1072
`
`

`
`Applicant: Robert Ashley
`Serial No.: 13/277,789
`Docket No.: 512-53 DIV/CON IIIRCE
`Page 2
`
`Meibomian gland disease (MGD) involves dysfunction ofthe meibomian
`5.
`gland. Such dysfunction can lead to inflammation ofthe meibomian glands
`(meibomianitis) and excess oil in the tear film
`
`Meibomian gland disease frequently presents with at least one of the following
`6.
`symptoms: dry eye; buming, itching and stickiness ofthe eye; foreign body sensation
`in the eye; eye watering; photophobia; and intennittent blurred vision. Allthese
`symptoms are unique to the eye.
`
`Since MGD is a disease of the eye, a patient presenting with the symptoms of
`7.
`MGD should be referred to a physician specializing in ocular disorders, such as an
`ophthalmologist.
`
`Pflugfelder discloses the use oftetracyclines to treat MGD. Since MGD is an
`8.
`ailment that solely affects the eye, a skilled artisan would understand Pflugfelder as
`disclosing the use of tetracyclines to treat the eye.
`
`Patients sometimes present with both symptoms ofrosacea and symptoms of
`9.
`MGD. However, MGD is a condition which is distinct from rosacea. MGD is not
`rosacea.
`
`In the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 of Pflugfelder, it is stated that the
`10.
`activity of gelatinase B " ... is markedly increased in the tear fluid of patients with
`meibomian gland disease associated with rosacea," and that the " ... activity of
`gelatinase B appears tobe inversely correlated with tear clearance." From this
`description oftear composition and clearance, a skilled artisan would understand that,
`in this case, MGD happened to appear with ocular rosacea.
`
`At col. 4, lines 17-21, Pflugfelder discusses treating MGD "associated with
`11.
`rosacea" by topical administration of a tetracycline analogue in an ointment or in
`solution (e.g., "eye drops"). From this description, a skilled artisan would recognize
`that Pflugfelder discloses a topical treatment ofthe eye for ocular symptoms.
`
`Exh. 1072
`
`

`
`Applicant: Robert Ashley
`Serial No.: 13/277,789 ,
`Docket No.: 512-53 DIV /CON IIIRCE
`Page 3
`
`At col. 8, beginning at line 55, of Pflugfeld er, the treatment of eleven patients
`12.
`with MGD associated with rosacea is described. The treatment included " ... topical
`administration to the ocular surface or the eyelids" of oxytetracycline. A skilled
`artisan would understand that treatment of MGD by topical administration "to the
`ocular surface or the eyelids" means treating the eye.
`
`A skilled artisan would clearly understand, therefore, that the rosacea with
`13.
`which Pflugfelder reports MGD is somehow "associated" is ocular rosacea. There is
`no suggestion in Pflugfelder oftreating the skin.
`
`Facial rosacea is a disease ofthe skin. A patient presenting with the
`14.
`symptoms of facial rosacea, such as, for example, the papules and pustules of rosacea,
`should be referred to a dermatologist.
`
`A skilled artisan reading Perricone would understand that Perricone discloses
`15.
`treating acne with an antibiotic amount oftetracycline. That the amount of
`tetracycline must be antibiotic is readily apparent for several reasons.
`
`First, at col. 8, lines 27-32, of Perricone, the following is stated: "Lipoic acid
`16.
`may be added to an antibiotic preparation, or applied before, during, or after antibiotic
`treatment. .. " Thus, Perricone is clearly prescribing an antibiotic treatment.
`
`Second, Perricone groups tetracycline together with clindamycin and
`17.
`erythromycin. Clindamycin and erythromycin do not have anti-inflammatory
`properties. The property that these three compounds have in common is that they are
`all antibiotic. Thus, it is apparent that such antibiotic property is what Perricone
`teaches is required for his treatment.
`
`Exh. 1072
`
`

`
`Applicant: Robert Ashley
`Serial No.: 13/277,789
`DocketNo.: 512-53 DIV/CONII/RCE
`Page 4
`
`Third, at the time Perricone was filed, i.e., December 1999, as well as the
`18.
`priority date ofthe instant application, i.e., September 26, 2001, acne was thought to
`be caused by bacteria, P. acnes. Thus, a skilled artisan would have understood from
`Perricone that an antibiotic preparation was required for the treatment of acne.
`
`At a certain thresho1d dose and above, tetracycline exhibits antibiotic
`19.
`properties. Depending on various factors, including the severity of an ailment, a
`physician may prescribe tetracycline at a dose that is well above the antibiotic
`threshold dose, at a minimum antibiotic dose, or at a dose somewhere in between such
`doses. As the dosage is increased, adverse effects increase. Nonetheless, above the
`threshold dose, treatment with tetracycline will be an antibiotic treatment.
`
`Although a skilled artisan may have believed that a sub-antibiotic dose of
`20.
`tetracycline may lead to fewer side effects, the skilled artisan wou1d have no reason to
`believe that such sub-antibiotic dose wou1d be effective in the method of Perricone.
`
`Before the present invention, a dermatalogist would not have prescribed a 40
`21.
`mg dose of doxycycline to treat acne or to treat rosacea.
`
`I hereby declare that all Statementsmade herein ofmy own knowledge are true
`22.
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. Further
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willfully false Statements
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under Section
`I 001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willfully false statements
`may jeopardize the validity ofthe application of any patent issued thereon.
`
`-'\""\ ...... \..
`\--(_ \o L_.-..... \-:;)_
`Dated: _________ .....
`..;::::,
`J- 1-
`
`398623
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`~1!..--c:::._
`
`Vasant Manna
`
`Exh. 1072

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket