`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`L’OREAL USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00779
`Patent No. 6,645,513
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’513 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`A.
`The Relevant Distinction Between the Epidermal vs. Dermal
`Layers of the Skin as Taught in the ’513 Patent ................................... 4
`The ’513 Patent’s Inventions Enhance the Condition of
`Unbroken, Non-Diseased Skin, Without Increasing Dermal Cell
`Proliferation. .......................................................................................... 5
`The ’513 Patent’s Claims Require Applying Adenosine to the
`Dermal Cells Without Increasing Dermal Cell Proliferation. ............. 10
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`“Adenosine Concentration Applied to the Dermal Cells is 10-3
`A.
`M to 10-7 M” ........................................................................................ 12
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction is Contrary to the Plain
`Meaning Of The Claim. ...................................................................... 13
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction is Contrary to the
`Specification. ....................................................................................... 15
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Is Inconsistent With The
`Prosecution History. ............................................................................ 17
`The Board Should Disregard the Petition’s § 112 Written
`Description Arguments and Deny the Petition ................................... 21
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PETITION GROUNDS .................................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY CLAIM IS ANTICIPATED BY JP ’153 ....... 25
` Overview of JP ’153 ............................................................................ 25
`A.
`JP ’153 Does Not Teach Delivery of Adenosine to the Dermal
`B.
`
`Layer of Cells at the Claimed Range of the ’513 Patent. .................... 27
`There is No Showing of Enhancing Skin Condition “Without
`Increasing Dermal Cell Proliferation” ................................................ 28
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIM 4 IS OBVIOUS OVER JP ’153 .................. 30
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY CLAIM IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`THE COMBINATION OF JP ’153 AND DE ’107 ...................................... 36
` Overview of DE ’107 .......................................................................... 37
`A.
`DE ’107 is Based on Increasing Cell Proliferation. ............................ 38
`B.
`
`DE ’107 Teaches Thousands of Formulations, But Does Not
`C.
`
`Teach Delivery of Adenosine to the Dermal Layer at All, Let
`Alone in the Claimed Range. .............................................................. 38
`The Petition Does Not Provide a Motivation to Combine or
`Modify JP ’153 and/or DE ’107. ......................................................... 41
`The Combination Would Necessarily Fall Outside the Scope of
`Claim 1 of the ’513 Patent. .................................................................. 44
`
`D.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`VIII. PATENT OWNER ASSERTS ITS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY ......... 49
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE BARRED BY SOVEREIGN
`IMMUNITY .................................................................................................. 50
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec,
`626 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 52
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................... 17, 18
`
`In re Antoine,
`559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) ................................................................................. 45
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985).............................................................................. 34
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006).............................................................................. 29
`
`Continental Can Co. USA, Inc., v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................ 28
`
`Elekta Instrument v. OUR Scientific Intern.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................ 19
`
`Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth.,
`535 U.S. 743 (2002) ............................................................................................. 51
`
`General Electric Co. v. Joiner,
`522 U.S. 136 (1997) ...................................................................................... 34, 35
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize Prods., Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988).............................................................................. 46
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)............................................................................ 31
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 43
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Library of Congress v. Shaw,
`478 U.S. 310 (1986) ............................................................................................. 51
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 44
`
`Millenium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................... 28, 36, 48
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................ 11
`
`Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC,
`65 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995).............................................................................. 22
`
`Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. Knight,
`321 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................ 51
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel Link Corp.,
`701 Fed. Appx. 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 43
`
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,
`584 U.S. __ (2018) ............................................................................................... 49
`
`Tegic Commc’ns Corp. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys.,
`458 F.3d 1355 ...................................................................................................... 52
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.,
`617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................... 43, 44
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) .................................................................................................... 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 24, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 21, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Rules
`792, 799 (Fed. Cir) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 21
`
`37 CFR §§42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b) ........................................................................ 56
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The present Petition has substantial overlap with the Petition filed in inter
`
`partes review No. IPR2018-00778.1 The Petitioner relies on the same prior art
`
`references in that proceeding and makes the same legally flawed and/or irrelevant
`
`arguments regarding claim construction and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Patent Owner’s response herein similarly has substantial overlap, with the reasons
`
`that the Petition should be denied explained in full below.
`
`Every challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,645,513 (“the ’513 Patent”)
`
`recites a method of enhancing the condition of skin without increasing dermal cell
`
`proliferation by applying a particular concentration of the compound adenosine to
`
`the dermal cells, i.e., the cells in the dermal layer of the skin which lies below the
`
`epidermal layer at the surface of the skin. Each of the Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`arguments depends on the Board adopting a faulty claim construction that rewrites
`
`the limitation specifying a range of concentrations “applied to the dermal cells” to
`
`mean instead the concentration “applied to the epidermal layer.” This is an
`
`impermissible rewriting of the claim that should be rejected, and the Petition
`
`should be denied on this basis alone.
`
`1 The primary difference between the Petitions relates to the fact that the claimed
`
`range of adenosine concentration in the patent that is the subject of the present IPR
`
`is broader than the range recited in the related patent at issue in IPR2018-00778.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`
`
`It is readily apparent that Petitioner is seeking to impermissibly rewrite the
`
`limitation rather than proposing to interpret it. Petitioner’s own expert
`
`acknowledges in his declaration that the dermis and epidermis of the skin are
`
`separate layers, the patent refers to them separately, and in response to a notice of
`
`reasons for allowance during prosecution of the ’513 Patent’s parent application
`
`the applicant stated that the specified concentration is not what is applied to the
`
`surface of the skin, but rather what is applied to the dermal layer (through the
`
`epidermis).
`
`If a proper construction (i.e., dermal means dermal) is applied, the Petition
`
`fails without further examination. This is because Petitioner makes no attempt to
`
`establish invalidity under the proper construction. To the contrary, Petitioner
`
`claims that it is not even possible to know the adenosine concentration at the
`
`dermal layer based on what is applied topically (a Section 112 argument that
`
`Petitioner makes in the context of asking the Board to change “dermal” to
`
`“epidermal”).
`
`Petitioner is wrong, but that does not matter. Section 112 arguments are not
`
`proper in an IPR. And while claim terms with multiple plausible interpretations
`
`may be read to be valid, this doctrine does not allow a claim to be rewritten so that
`
`it does not have its ordinary meaning.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The Petition makes a variety of other arguments, all of which fail even if the
`
`Board were to interpret “dermal” to mean “epidermal.” For example, the primary
`
`prior art reference relied upon in the Petition teaches that adenosine alone is not
`
`effective at improving the condition of the skin (it must be combined with other
`
`compounds), that the mechanism to effect treatment is not understood, and it
`
`identifies an adenosine concentration range that is vastly different from the range
`
`claimed in the ’513 Patent. The claims of the ’513 Patent also recite improving
`
`skin condition “without increasing dermal cell proliferation,” and one prior art
`
`reference teaches skin improvement through cell proliferation, whereas the other
`
`reference is silent on the subject. For at least these reasons, none of the presented
`
`grounds forms a proper basis to find anticipation or obviousness.
`
`The flaws in Petitioner’s invalidity arguments are addressed below, but the
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board need not reach them. Should the
`
`Board conclude that Petitioner has not established that “applied to the dermal
`
`cells” actually means “applied to the epidermal layer,” the Petition can be denied
`
`without more.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’513 PATENT
`
`A. The Relevant Distinction Between the Epidermal vs. Dermal Layers
`of the Skin as Taught in the ’513 Patent
`
`The ’513 Patent originated from the discovery of Dr. James Dobson and Dr.
`
`Michael Ethier that adenosine could be administered in such a way as to stimulate
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`DNA synthesis, increase protein synthesis, and increase cell size in human skin
`
`fibroblasts. (Ex. 1002 at 1:42-46.)
`
`The patent states, “[s]kin includes a surface layer, known as the epidermis,
`
`and the deeper connective tissue layer, known as the dermis. The epidermis
`
`undergoes continuous turnover as the outermost cells are exfoliated and replaced
`
`by cells that arise from the inner dermal layers.” (Id. at 1:25-29.) “The dermis is
`
`composed of a variety of cell types, including fibroblasts.” (Id. at 1:29-30.)
`
`A simple diagram of the skin is:
`
`
`
`The ’513 Patent seeks to address a specific problem concerning dermal
`
`fibroblasts that occurs as humans age, namely “[s]kin thickness begins to decline in
`
`humans after the age of 20 as the dermis becomes thinner and the number of skin
`
`fibroblasts declines.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:31-39.) Furthermore, “[a]s skin ages, or is
`
`exposed to UV light and other environmental insults, changes in the underlying
`
`dermis can lead to the functional and morphological changes associated with
`
`damaged skin. Decreases in the abundance and function of products of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`fibroblasts, which include [proteins] collagen and proteoglycans, are believed to
`
`play major roles in wrinkled and damaged skin.” (Id.)
`
`Dr. Dobson and Dr. Ethier discovered that it is these dermal cell layer
`
`fibroblasts that are the cells for which DNA synthesis, protein synthesis and cell
`
`size are enhanced by the ’513 Patent’s delivery of small concentrations of
`
`adenosine to the dermal layer. (Id. at 1:29-30.)
`
`They also discovered that too much adenosine is counterproductive and that
`
`only a low concentration should reach the dermal layer. (Id. at 2:32-40.) Thus
`
`(and contrary to the prior art cited in the Petition) in the claimed invention the
`
`concentration is held low to avoid increasing cell proliferation. (Id. at 10:18-26.)
`
`In other words, the inventors discovered that the proper way to address thinning of
`
`the dermis is not to try to increase the number cells using higher adenosine
`
`concentrations, but to enhance existing dermal cells to help them remain robust.
`
`B. The ’513 Patent’s Inventions Enhance the Condition of Unbroken,
`Non-Diseased Skin, Without Increasing Dermal Cell Proliferation.
`
`In view of the above problems associated with aging skin, the ’513 Patent
`
`teaches “an invention [that] is suitable for treating skin of a mammal, e.g., a
`
`human, for which promotion of fibroblast-associated dermal functions is desired.
`
`For example, promotion of fibroblast functions is desirable in enhancing the
`
`condition of aged skin, which is associated with a decrease in dermal cell function
`
`and is characterized by increased dryness or roughness, or both.” (Ex. 1002 at
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`3:30-36.) The ’513 Patent’s “method can also be used on subjects having
`
`otherwise damaged skin, e.g., wrinkled skin and skin with a non-proliferative
`
`disorder. The method can [be] further used prophylactically on a subject to
`
`minimize deterioration of skin condition associated with aging or environmental
`
`factors, such as photodamage.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:36-41.)
`
`The ’513 Patent teaches that materially increasing dermal cell proliferation
`
`is undesirable. Increasing cell proliferation would mean increasing cell number, in
`
`regard to which the ’513 Patent states: “The adenosine is added so that it does not
`
`cause proliferation of the dermal cell.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:64-65; see also id. at 2:4-
`
`5(“The adenosine . . . does not cause proliferation of the dermal cell.”); id. at 2:11-
`
`13 (“wherein addition of the adenosine does not cause proliferation of the dermal
`
`cell”); id. at 10:20-21 (“without increasing dermal cell proliferation . . .”).) During
`
`prosecution, the applicant further explained that the “claims require no increase in
`
`dermal cell proliferation, because such excess cell proliferation can cause scarring,
`
`discoloration, and a variety of other skin anomalies associated with hyperplasia.”
`
`(Ex. 1009 at 84.)
`
`As noted above, instead of addressing a skin disorder by promoting
`
`increased cell proliferation, the ’513 Patent teaches increasing cell size, protein
`
`synthesis and DNA synthesis, by administering a “therapeutically effective
`
`amount” of adenosine to dermal fibroblasts but without increasing dermal cell
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`proliferation. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at 2:6-8 (“provided in the invention is a method
`
`of increasing cell size in a dermal cell in non-diseased skin of a mammal, e.g., a
`
`human”); id. at 1:66-67 (“[t]he invention also features a method of increasing
`
`protein synthesis in a dermal cell of non-diseased skin of a mammal”); id. at 1:59-
`
`61 (“included in the invention is a method for increasing DNA synthesis in a
`
`dermal cell of non-diseased skin of a mammal”); id. at 1:43-45 (“We have
`
`discovered that adenosine stimulates DNA synthesis, increases protein synthesis,
`
`and increases cell size . . . .”).)
`
`By definition, to achieve the benefits of adenosine-induced increased dermal
`
`fibroblast activity, a requisite concentration of adenosine must reach the lower
`
`dermal cell layer of the skin, in accordance with Dr. Dobson’s and Dr. Ethier’s
`
`invention. Thus, the ‘513 Patent teaches both the proper range to reach the dermal
`
`layer and mechanisms to get it there.
`
`For the proper concentration range at the dermal layer, the ’513 Patent
`
`includes several ex vivo experimental results showing the effect of delivering
`
`disclosed concentrations of adenosine between 10-3 M and 10-7 M, more preferably
`
`10-4 M, ex vivo to dermal fibroblasts. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at 6:22-9:48; see also id.
`
`at 3:29-6:20.)
`
`For example, the ’513 Patent used a fluorescent-activated cell sorter and
`
`forward light scatter to determine cell size in cultured dermal cells that were
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`exposed to specific adenosine concentrations at the dermal cells. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`7:25-36.) For DNA synthesis, cultured dermal fibroblasts were exposed to, e.g.,
`
`10-4 M adenosine, and supplied with [3H] (i.e., tritium-labeled, tritium being a
`
`radioactive isotope of hydrogen) thymidine, whose incorporation would indicate
`
`DNA synthesis activity. (Ex. 1002 at 6:62-67.) To observe the effect on protein
`
`synthesis, similarly, cultured dermal fibroblasts were exposed to, e.g., 10-4 M
`
`adenosine, and supplied with [3H] phenylalanine, an amino acid, which would be
`
`incorporated during protein synthesis. (Ex. 1002 at 6:62-67.) Statistically
`
`significant increases in DNA synthesis (see, e.g., Figure 1A) and protein synthesis
`
`(Figures 2A and 2B) are included with the specification’s narrative explanation of
`
`the benefits of the ’513 Patent’s invention. (Ex. 1002 at 6:22-9:48.)
`
`The patent further teaches mechanisms to apply the therapeutic
`
`concentration to the dermal layer in vivo through topical application to the
`
`epidermis. The ’513 Patent teaches, inter alia, that “[f]or topical application, the
`
`penetration of adenosine into skin tissue may be enhanced by a variety of
`
`methods….” (Ex. 1002 at 5:20-22.) “Preferably, the penetration resulting from
`
`these methods is enhanced with a chemical transdermal delivery agent such as
`
`dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) or the nonionic surfactant, n-decylmethyl sulfoxide
`
`(NDMS), as described in Choi et al., Pharmaceutical Res., 7(11):1099, 1990.)”
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 5:26-31.) The penetration is done to achieve the proper concentration
`
`at the dermal layer.
`
`The Petition itself recognizes the ’513 Patent’s teaching of enabling the
`
`requisite concentration of adenosine to penetrate from the outer epidermal layer to
`
`the lower dermal cell layer where the adenosine can interact with dermal
`
`fibroblasts. (See, e.g., Paper 2 at 22.) The Petition states, inter alia, that “‘topical
`
`application’ of a composition to ‘unbroken skin’ necessarily requires application of
`
`the composition to the outer, epidermal layer of the skin, rather than directly to the
`
`inner, dermal layer.” (Id.) Petitioner’s expert likewise admits (unsurprisingly) that
`
`a lotion cannot be applied directly to the dermal layer and “a skilled artisan would
`
`have understood that dermal fibroblasts are covered by the outer, epidermal layer
`
`of the skin.” (Ex. 1010 ¶31.) It can only be applied through the epidermal layer.
`
`The Petition goes on to argue that it is not possible to know the
`
`concentration at the dermal layer based on the concentration applied topically.
`
`While it is true that the concentration at the surface may not be the same as in the
`
`dermal layer, Petitioner is nevertheless wrong as explained below.
`
`C. The ’513 Patent’s Claims Require Applying Adenosine to the Dermal
`Cells Without Increasing Dermal Cell Proliferation.
`
`As noted above, the ’513 Patent claims methods for enhancing the condition
`
`of unbroken mammalian skin by delivering a claimed concentration of adenosine
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`to the layer of the skin known as the “dermal” layer and without increasing cell
`
`proliferation. (Ex. 1002 at 10:17-46.)
`
`Claim 1, the sole independent claim of the ’513 Patent, recites:
`
`A method for enhancing the condition of unbroken skin
`of a mammal by reducing one or more of wrinkling,
`roughness, dryness, or laxity of the skin, without
`increasing dermal cell proliferation, the method
`comprising topically applying to the skin a composition
`comprising a concentration of adenosine in an amount
`effective to enhance the condition of the skin without
`increasing dermal cell proliferation, wherein the
`adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is
`10-3 M to 10-7 M.
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 10:16-47 (emphasis added).) Although the claimed composition is
`
`topically applied to the epidermal layer, the claim explicitly requires that the
`
`recited concentration range reach the dermal cell layer, stating “wherein the
`
`adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” (Ex.
`
`1002 at 10:16-46) (emphasis added). As noted during prosecution (and in the
`
`Petition), this can correspond to a range of .00000265-.0265% adenosine. (See Ex.
`
`1009 at 90-91.)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner timely filed its Unopposed Motion for District Court-Type
`
`Claim Construction in Accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) that included the
`
`requisite certification that the ’513 Patent will expire on October 26, 2018. (See
`
`Paper 6.) The Board granted the Motion on June 21, 2018. (Paper 7.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Accordingly, in this proceeding, the words of a claim should be “generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To ascertain the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, courts look to “those sources available to the public that
`
`show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim
`
`language to mean” including “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of
`
`the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning
`
`relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the
`
`art.” Id. at 1314. “However, while extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the
`
`relevant art, … it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the
`
`legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`A. “Adenosine Concentration Applied to the Dermal Cells is 10-3 M to
`10-7 M”
`
`The Petition requests a construction of the phrase “the adenosine
`
`concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M” as appears in Claim 1
`
`of the ’513 Patent. (See, e.g., Paper 2 at 20.) Petitioner asserts that the claim
`
`language “applied to the dermal cells” refers to the concentration of adenosine that
`
`is applied not to the dermal cells, but to the outer epidermal layer of the skin.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`As explained below, Petitioner’s proposed construction is contrary (and, in
`
`fact, repugnant) to the ordinary meaning of “dermal,” it is inconsistent with the
`
`patent’s specification, and it is inconsistent with the statements made about the
`
`meaning of the term during prosecution of the ’513 Patent’s parent application.
`
`For these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that this language be
`
`construed to mean what it says – that the recited concentration is the concentration
`
`that is applied to the dermal cells.
`
`The resolution of this issue is dispositive, since the Petitioner makes no
`
`effort to show or even argue that the concentration requirements are met in any
`
`prior art at the dermal layer. Quite the contrary, as discussed below, the Petitioner
`
`goes so far as to claim that it is impossible to know the concentration at the dermal
`
`layer for the ’513 Patent and, by extension, the prior art. While not true,
`
`Petitioner’s argument highlights that it has not attempted to establish invalidity if
`
`the claims are directed to adenosine concentrations applied to the dermal cells.
`
`B. Petitioner’s Proposed Construction is Contrary to the Plain
`Meaning Of The Claim.
`
`The Petition asserts that “the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal
`
`cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M” should be construed to refer to “the concentration of
`
`adenosine in the composition that is topically applied to the unbroken, outer
`
`epidermal layer of a region of the skin containing the dermal cells.” (Paper 2 at
`
`20) (emphasis in original).
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`In other words, the Petitioner’s proposal is that the claim language “applied
`
`to the dermal cells,” does not mean “applied to the dermal cells” at all, rather it
`
`means “applied to the outer epidermal layer of the skin.” Petitioner’s claim
`
`construction should be rejected.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is directly contrary to the plain language
`
`of the claim, because the claim recites that “the adenosine concentration applied to
`
`the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” (emphasis added). The language is clear.
`
`The recited concentration is the concentration that comes into contact with the
`
`dermal cells, not the “unbroken epidermal layer of the skin” as Petitioner proposes.
`
`Petitioner’s addition of the phrase “epidermal layer of a region of the skin
`
`containing the dermal cells” also confuses the proposed construction. First, there
`
`is no region of the epidermal layer that contains the dermal cells. They are called
`
`dermal cells because they are in the dermal layer. As noted throughout the ’513
`
`Patent (quoted above), the epidermis and dermis are separate layers.2
`
`
`2 Any number of extrinsic sources confirm this plain meaning of “epidermis” and
`“dermis.” For example, the American Academy of Dermatology has a tutorial
`describing the separate layers of skin as: “Epidermis is the top layer of the skin, the
`part of the skin you see. Dermis is the second layer of skin. It’s much thicker and
`does a lot for your body. Subcutaneous fat is the bottom layer.” The tutorial
`includes a figure showing the separate layers.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`In view of this, the added “region” language actually contradicts itself. Does
`
`it mean that one must find a region of the epidermal layer that has dermal cells?
`
`That is nonsensical – the epidermal layer does not contain dermal cells; the dermal
`
`layer does. Or perhaps it means that the compound is applied at the epidermal
`
`layer in an area where the skin as a whole includes dermal cells? That would be all
`
`of the skin, rendering the language meaningless.
`
`Petitioner’s expert is no help. Like the Petition itself, the expert does not
`
`explain, support, adopt or endorse the language. Although the Petitioner’s expert’s
`
`declaration includes a discussion of skin layers and variables that would
`
`supposedly influence the concentration of adenosine that reaches the dermal cells,
`
`he ignores this “region of the skin containing the dermal cells” language
`
`completely. (See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 30-36.) He does not even purport to say this
`
`“region” aspect of the limitation (whatever it means) would be met in the prior art.
`
`In short, the language makes no sense, and the Petition as a whole shows
`
`that to be the case. The Petition includes no argument in support of using this
`
`phrase in the construction – no definitions, no cites to the specification or
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.aad.org/public/kids/skin/the-layers-of-your-skin . Petitioners’ expert
`also acknowledges them to be separate layers. (Ex. 1010 ¶ 31.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`prosecution history. Petitioners’ expert neither offers support nor does he opine
`
`that the “region” language is met in any prior art. This provides an additional
`
`ground for denying the Petition – the Petitioner does not attempt to show that the
`
`full claim construction it proposes is actually present in the prior art.
`
`In reality, it does not appear that the “region” language is offered as a
`
`substantive limitation, but rather is an effort to obscure the fact that the proposed
`
`construction rewrites “dermal layer” to “epidermal layer.” Again, the proposal is
`
`repugnant to the ordinary meaning of the term “dermal.” Petitioner’s proposal to
`
`construe “dermal” to mean “epidermal” is simply wrong, and it should be rejected.
`
`C. Petitioner’s Proposed Construction is Contrary to the
`Specification.
`
`The specification also contradicts Petitioner’s proposed construction. The
`
`very first sentence of the specification notes the basic truth that these layers of skin
`
`are separate: “Skin includes a surface layer, known as the epidermis, and a deeper
`
`connective tissue layer, known as the dermis.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:25-27.)
`
`Petitioner nevertheless asserts that “the only disclosure in the ’513
`
`specification where adenosine is ‘applied to dermal cells’ is associated with ex vivo
`
`methods (direct application to dermal fibroblasts in cell cultures), and not in vivo
`
`methods (topical application to human skin) as required by claim 1.” (Paper 2 at
`
`20.) Petitioner’s argument about what the specification discloses is incorrect.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`In the ’513 Patent, direct application to dermal cells ex vivo was done to
`
`illustrate the effect of particular concentrations at the dermal layer, again
`
`confirming that the recited range is at the dermal layer. (Ex. 1002 at 9:5-50.)
`
`Accordingly, the specification explains that adenosine containing compositions are
`
`“preferably applied [to the dermal cells] by topical routes to exert local therapeutic
`
`effects,” and that they “may be applied directly and mechanically rubbed into the
`
`skin,” or “incorporated into a transdermal patch that is applied to the skin.” (Ex.
`
`1002 at 5:18-23 (emphasis supplied).) The specification goes on to explain, “the
`
`penetration resulting from these methods is enhanced with a chemical transdermal
`
`delivery agent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) or the nonionic surfactant, n-
`
`decylmethyl sulfoxide (NDMS), as described in Choi et al., Pharmaceutical