`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`GENOME & COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION: BURDEN OF PROOF ............................................. 1
`I.
`II. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IS NOT AN
`AUTOMATON......................................................................................... 1
`III. ENABLEMENT – Ground 1 .................................................................... 3
`A. Cancer types .........................................................................................3
`B. Checkpoint inhibitors ...........................................................................5
`C. Bifidobacterium species and strains .....................................................8
`1. O’Mahony .......................................................................................9
`2. Lopez ............................................................................................ 10
`D. Routes of administration ................................................................... 11
`E. Routine testing ................................................................................... 12
`F. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 13
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS ..................................................................................... 13
`A. Korman/Singh/Dong – Grounds 2–4 ................................................. 13
`B. Korman/Kohwi – Grounds 5–8 ......................................................... 17
`C. Korman/Mohania/Prakash – Grounds 9–11 ...................................... 20
`V. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 23
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION: BURDEN OF PROOF
`Patent Owner has shown that Petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to
`
`prove the factual predicates required to reach the conclusions that the claims
`
`are unpatentable for lack of enablement or for obviousness. Petitioner largely
`
`sidesteps Patent Owner’s Response by inaccurately portraying it as a “proof
`
`of enablement” (Reply 8) or “obviousness rebuttal” (id. at 2). It is not Patent
`
`Owner’s burden to prove enablement or nonobviousness. Rather, Patent
`
`Owner has presented evidence of gaps, unwarranted assumptions, and flat-out
`
`inaccuracies in Petitioner’s case, defects that compel the conclusion, as a
`
`matter of law, that Petitioner has not and cannot satisfy its burden to prove
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 326(e).
`
`II. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IS NOT AN AUTOMATON
` Petitioner argues that the person of ordinary skill in this case would
`
`have “an advanced degree or its substantial equivalent” and “research
`
`experience” in the biological sciences. Ex. 1002 ¶ 40. Petitioner also argues
`
`that the level of skill is high, requiring specialized knowledge of several fields.
`
`Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132). Inherent in the concept of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art holding an advanced degree, specialized knowledge, and
`
`research experience, is the ability to review the scientific literature critically
`
`and to evaluate it.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`Yet at numerous points in its challenges, Petitioner argues that its
`
`highly sophisticated POSA would have blindly accepted the conclusions of
`
`research papers, despite demonstrated limitations in experimental design and
`
`discrepancies in statistical analysis, because these papers were peer-reviewed
`
`and cited by others. Reply 2, 3, 10, 18–20, 22, 23.
`
`Mere publication of results does not make those results true, nor does
`
`it constitute credible evidence of what one of ordinary skill would rely on per
`
`se. Petitioner’s POSA would be a critical reviewer of the literature and not
`
`credit conclusions backed by irreproducible data or speculation. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 136 (Dr. Mani testifying that a POSA would have dismissed
`
`Kohwi’s results due to their irreproducibility).
`
`Petitioner has not contested Dr. Mani’s critiques of the statistical
`
`shortcomings in several papers on which Petitioner’s case critically relies,
`
`including Dong (PO Resp. 57; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 118–121), Kohwi (PO Resp. 63–
`
`65; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 136–140), O’Mahony (PO Resp. 20–23; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 57–66),
`
`and Lopez (PO Resp. 24–36; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 70–88). Nor has Petitioner
`
`responded to the substance of Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would
`
`have questioned these papers given their dubious statistics. Petitioner instead
`
`stands on its insistence that its highly trained, skilled, and experienced POSA
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`would simply accept statements from these papers as true without critical
`
`analysis. But just as a POSA would bring to bear a complete knowledge of the
`
`relevant prior art and an ordinary creativity in synthesizing that art, KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–21 (2007), so too would the POSA
`
`recognize the limitations of the prior art and refuse to credit its conclusions on
`
`insufficient evidence. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
`
`1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (each prior art
`
`reference must be considered in its entirety).
`
`III. ENABLEMENT – Ground 1
`Enablement is a question of law based upon underlying factual findings.
`
`In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Petitioner’s allegations
`
`therefore must be supported by sufficient and credible evidence to justify their
`
`finding. Patent Owner has shown, however, that Petitioner’s evidence does
`
`not support the factual allegations critical to Petitioner’s enablement
`
`challenge. Patent Owner also has shown through evidence presented in its
`
`Response that Petitioner’s assertions of uncertainty and unpredictability are
`
`premised on unwarranted assumptions. For these reasons, Petitioner’s
`
`enablement challenge should be rejected.
`
`A. Cancer types
`Although Petitioner argues that cancer is a large class of widely varying
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`diseases (Pet. 21–26), Petitioner has not identified any type of cancer that was
`
`reported as failing to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
`
`Patent Owner has shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors treat cancer
`
`types across a wide range of mutational burdens. PO Resp. 10–13. Because
`
`the responsive cancer types are spread throughout the mutational burden
`
`spectrum, a POSA at the time would have expected that the untested types
`
`interspersed among them are responsive as well. Id.; Ex. 2007 ¶ 45. This
`
`evidence demonstrates that cancers are not widely varying and heterogeneous
`
`with respect to their susceptibility to checkpoint inhibitors. Petitioner merely
`
`points out that not all cancer types have been tested; Petitioner does not
`
`explain why the reported cancers, all of which are responsive, are not
`
`representative of all cancer types in the context of checkpoint inhibitor
`
`therapy.
`
`Although Petitioner argues that there are many mechanisms aside from
`
`immune checkpoints by which tumor cells evade the immune system (Reply
`
`12–13), Petitioner offers no response to Patent Owner’s argument and
`
`evidence that checkpoint inhibition “alters the balance of co-stimulatory and
`
`co-inhibitor signals on T cells, and alters this balance in favor of T cell
`
`activation” (Ex. 2007 ¶ 32), thereby lowering the threshold for the immune
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`system to act on a tumor. PO Resp. 5. This disinhibition acts to increase
`
`immune system responsiveness regardless of how the tumor is evading
`
`detection. It is precisely because this approach is cause-agnostic that persons
`
`of ordinary skill had reason to expect it to work against all cancer types. Id.
`
`B. Checkpoint inhibitors
`Although Petitioner argues that checkpoint inhibitors are a large class
`
`of agents that are recited functionally in the claims, and that the ’302 patent
`
`identifies no examples of checkpoint inhibitors in certain classes (such as
`
`antibody fragments and interfering nucleic acids), Petitioner has not offered
`
`any evidence that such agents do not exist, aside from its expert’s
`
`ignorance. Reply 5 n.4 (citing Ex. 1043 ¶ 19). Petitioner also offers no
`
`evidence that one of ordinary skill would not have recognized the emergence
`
`of such agents as they are introduced in the art. The law of enablement
`
`contemplates
`
`claiming
`
`broadly
`
`to
`
`cover
`
`after-arising
`
`embodi-
`
`ments. “Enablement does not require the inventor to foresee every means of
`
`implementing an invention at pains of losing his patent franchise.” Invitrogen
`
`Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (rejecting enablement challenge where functionally-defined claim had
`
`been asserted against an accused infringer practicing the invention in a manner
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`not described in the specification).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`Patent Owner has shown that the low but consistent response rates of
`
`many cancers to checkpoint inhibitors creates no uncertainty about whether
`
`checkpoint inhibitors work for cancer patient populations. PO Resp. 13–16.
`
`Petitioner offers no authority for its argument that enablement requires a
`
`100% (or some other threshold) response rate.1 And Petitioner’s argument
`
`that a low response rate indicates uncertainty is refuted by Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence of how the field has viewed these response rates. The FDA’s
`
`approval of nivolumab for lung cancer in March 2015 with a response rate of
`
`15% (Ex. 2057 at 21) demonstrates that the field accepted low response rates
`
`and considered a cancer treatment to work notwithstanding a low response
`
`rate. PO Resp. 14–15; Ex. 2007 ¶ 47. Thus, for a population of patients with
`
`a given cancer, the efficacy of a checkpoint inhibitor was sufficiently certain
`
`(even when 85% of the trial population had not reported a response) that the
`
`FDA was willing to approve it for all patients within the population. Id.
`
`
`1 E.g., Pet. 27 (“[T]he same immune checkpoint inhibitor does not
`
`successfully treat all patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma.”) (emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not responded to this evidence of the field’s ready adoption of
`
`checkpoint inhibitors.
`
`The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors is assessed at the level of patient
`
`populations because that is how organizations charged with evaluating the
`
`safety and efficacy of such therapies (e.g., the FDA) assess them. Id. But
`
`even if individual patient responses are considered, Petitioner does not dispute
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence as to how a treatment regimen is selected.
`
`Petitioner’s expert acknowledged that the process of cancer treatment begins
`
`with knowing the particular cancer the patient has (Ex. 2078, 13:17–20),
`
`thereby eliminating the “many different kinds of cancers” (Pet. 22; Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 95 (verbatim)) as an axis of uncertainty in cancer therapy. Patent Owner’s
`
`uncontested evidence from Dr. Mani, a board-certified oncologist, shows that,
`
`for a given patient, an oncologist often tries out several therapies, to find one
`
`that provides the best possible result for that patient and treating oncologist,
`
`through a routine and manageable process. Ex. 2007 ¶ 53; PO Resp. 16–17.
`
`Petitioner has neither challenged this evidence nor contested that the process
`
`Dr. Mani describes is anything other than routine. And despite being held out
`
`as having “extensive experience in human cancer therapy” (Reply 15 n.10),
`
`Petitioner’s expert acknowledged, in contrast, that he has never had primary
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`responsibility for a cancer patient’s care by, for example, prescribing an
`
`immune checkpoint inhibitor or any other therapeutic agent (Ex. 2078, 8:5–9,
`
`9:6–8). Nor has he ever served as the principal investigator of a clinical trial
`
`(id. at 9:9–16).
`
`C. Bifidobacterium species and strains
`Although Petitioner argues that Bifidobacterium species and strains
`
`have heterogeneous effects on the immune system because papers have
`
`reported nonuniform effects on expression levels of selected cytokines in
`
`in vitro assays using PBMCs and DCs (Pet. 29–32; Reply 8–11), Petitioner
`
`has not provided evidence that any purported differences among in vitro
`
`cytokine expression levels result in different in vivo effects or differences in
`
`treating cancer. PO Resp. 32–36. The reported differences may simply be
`
`artifacts of the assay conditions employed, rather than reflect inherent
`
`variation in effect with different Bifidobacterium strains. PO Resp. 21–22.
`
`Petitioner offers no evidence that its references’ in vitro assays are
`
`representative of in vivo effects.
`
`Concerning
`
`the
`
`two references Petitioner relies on
`
`to assert
`
`heterogeneity among Bifidobacterium species, Patent Owner showed that both
`
`lack statistical rigor or any functional readout to justify that reliance. PO
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`Resp. 19–36.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`1. O’Mahony
`O’Mahony (Ex. 1017) provides no statistical analysis comparing
`
`strains. PO Resp. 20–24; Ex. 2033, 87:5–8; 86:25–87:3; 87:15–88:6;
`
`Ex. 2078, 22:16–29:24. O’Mahony therefore provides no meaningful basis
`
`on which to evaluate any differences between them. Petitioner does not
`
`explain why it is reasonable to dispense with statistical analysis here.
`
`Petitioner also fails to answer Patent Owner’s evidence that O’Mahony used
`
`an assay outside its reported dynamic range. PO Resp. 21; Ex. 2007 ¶ 58
`
`(citing Ex. 2065). Furthermore, O’Mahony does not provide any information
`
`about whether the observed in vitro differences in a few cytokines, even if
`
`they were statistically significant, had any effects on the immune system.
`
`Petitioner offers no evidence that in vitro PBMC tests are accepted proxies for
`
`in vivo immune system function or for the in vivo effects of bacteria on
`
`cancer. PO Resp. 24. Finally, Petitioner assumes the truth (i.e., the
`
`correctness) of O’Mahony’s data without a declaration from a person having
`
`first-hand knowledge of how the data was generated, a practice specifically
`
`prohibited by 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c). Paper 10, 13.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner “represented” during prosecution
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`that O’Mahony’s strain 1714 “was immunosuppressive” in order to obtain
`
`allowance of the ’302 patent. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1014, 132; id. at 64). Patent
`
`Owner made no such representation. Rather, Patent Owner cited passages in
`
`O’Mahony that describe immunosuppressive properties of strain 1714 and
`
`argued that the conflicting disclosures in Sharon and O’Mahony would have
`
`led one of ordinary skill in the art away from the combination. Patent Owner’s
`
`critique of O’Mahony was limited to a discussion of O’Mahony’s disclosure
`
`on its face. Patent Owner made no representations regarding whether
`
`O’Mahony’s data or conclusions are correct. Petitioner’s continued confusion
`
`about the difference between what a document discloses on its face versus the
`
`correctness of its data or conclusions demonstrates a fundamentally flawed
`
`understanding of the nature, weight, and effect of evidence.
`
`Lopez
`2.
`Lopez uses rank-order statistics that cannot, as a matter of basic
`
`statistical principles explained by Patent Owner’s expert, be used to compare
`
`the magnitudes of cytokine expression among groups. PO Resp. 24–36;
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 70–88. They can be used only to determine whether the cytokines
`
`are expressed in similar or different rank orders. PO Resp. 27–29; Ex. 2007 ¶
`
`77. Furthermore, Petitioner ignores the functional data Lopez provides, such
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`as data reporting similar PBMC proliferation and DC maturation effects of the
`
`strains, which demonstrates, if anything, the uniformity of strain effects. PO
`
`Resp. 30–33; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 82, 83. Sanchez’s passing citation to Lopez as
`
`evidence of Bifidobacterium heterogeneity (Ex. 1044, quoted at Reply 10–11)
`
`does not establish Lopez’s conclusions as correct, because Patent Owner has
`
`shown that it would have been unreasonable for a POSA to have relied on
`
`Lopez as evidence of Bifidobacterium heterogeneity due to its insufficiently
`
`powerful non-parametric statistics and its functional data suggestive of
`
`uniform effects. As discussed above in section II, one of ordinary skill brings
`
`critical judgment to the assessment of what the prior art discloses. A legal
`
`holding of non-enablement must be predicated on facts, not on undetected
`
`errors that have crept into the art, because persons of ordinary skill would not
`
`rely on such errors.
`
`D. Routes of administration
`Although Petitioner argues that various routes of administration for
`
`checkpoint inhibitors and Bifidobacterium are “likely” inoperable (Pet. 46–
`
`47; Reply 5), Petitioner presents no evidence concerning inoperable routes
`
`other than the ignorance of its expert, a pathologist who has never
`
`administered a checkpoint inhibitor to a human subject. Id.; Ex. 2078, 10:14–
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Petitioner also presents no evidence that routes of administration are not
`
`standard knowledge or routinely determined. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Actavis
`
`Elizabeth LLC, 435 Fed. Appx. 917, 922–23 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011)
`
`(affirming district court’s conclusion that a method-of-treatment claim,
`
`unrestricted with respect to formulation and dosage form, was enabled, noting
`
`the district court’s findings that “the various conceivable formulations are
`
`standard” and are routinely determined, and that “they were not part of the
`
`basis for the invention’s patentability”); Invitrogen, 429 F.3d at 1070–71
`
`(discussed supra).
`
`E. Routine testing
`Although Petitioner
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`required
`
`testing
`
`is
`
`“[u]nquestionably
`
`. . . burdensome and undue” (Pet. 43; Reply 6–7),
`
`Petitioner does not explain what that testing would involve beyond quantity,
`
`or why it would be anything other than routine. PO Resp. 37–43. Petitioner
`
`newly argues in Reply that the testing would be “challenging and expensive”
`
`involving “in vitro and in vivo experiments” taking “years to complete”
`
`(Reply 16–17) but cites no evidence to substantiate these claims aside from
`
`its expert’s verbatim unsupported statement (Ex. 1043 ¶ 76). This new
`
`argument is untimely because Petitioner does not explain why it could not
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`have presented it in its Petition, at a time when Patent Owner would have had
`
`a meaningful opportunity to respond to it with expert testimony. It should be
`
`disregarded for both its untimeliness and lack of credible evidentiary support.
`
`F. Conclusion
`Patent Owner has demonstrated that the evidence of record is
`
`insufficient to show the unpredictability on which Petitioner bases its case
`
`with respect to (a) the susceptibility of all cancer types to immune checkpoint
`
`inhibitor therapy; (b) efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patient
`
`populations with a given cancer; or (c) Bifidobacterium heterogeneity.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not made out a case for non-
`
`enablement of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS
`Throughout the portion of its Reply concerning the obviousness
`
`challenges, Petitioner largely repeats its original arguments without
`
`responding to the substance of Patent Owner’s evidence. Because Patent
`
`Owner shows that Petitioner’s evidence does not support the factual
`
`predicates underpinning Petitioner’s obviousness challenges, those challenges
`
`should be rejected.
`
`A. Korman/Singh/Dong – Grounds 2–4
`Petitioner
`repeats
`its
`argument
`that Singh
`
`demonstrates
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`Bifidobacterium
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`longum has anti-tumor activity (Reply 18) without
`
`responding to the substance of Patent Owner’s argument. Although Singh
`
`does say its data suggest that B. longum “exerts strong antitumor properties”
`
`(Abstr.), Singh consistently limits itself to the finding that B. longum inhibits
`
`AOM from inducing colon carcinogenesis without attributing that finding to
`
`any particular mechanism. PO Resp. 47–48; Ex. 2007 ¶ 99. Patent Owner
`
`showed
`
`that all of Singh’s supposed anti-tumor effects could be
`
`anticarcinogen effects against AOM, a possibility Singh itself acknowledges
`
`and Petitioner’s expert admitted. PO Resp. 47–48; Ex. 2033, 16:12–14 (“Q.
`
`And Singh does not rule out any of these possible mechanisms, these
`
`anticarcinogen properties. A. Correct.”). Petitioner does not respond to this
`
`showing. Thus Petitioner still offers no justification for relying on Singh for
`
`more than Singh is evidence of.
`
`Petitioner deceptively misquotes Singh at Reply 19 to suggest that
`
`Singh attributes B. longum’s mechanism to immunomodulation. But Singh
`
`states that the bacteria “may proceed through diverse mechanisms,” not
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`“proceeded.” (Ex. 1004, 6, first full para.).2 Petitioner’s ellipses then delete
`
`over 400 words of Singh’s text that raise well-documented anti-AOM
`
`properties by which B. longum may have its effects.3 Patent Owner explained
`
`in its Response how this very content undermines Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`Singh. PO Resp. 46–47. Petitioner argues instead that Singh must be
`
`accepted as true because it is cited favorably by other articles as evidence that
`
`B. longum resulted in “suppression of colon tumor incidence, tumor
`
`multiplicity and tumor volume.” Reply 18. But these references, like Singh,
`
`do not attribute that “suppression” to activity by B. longum against the cancer.
`
`They refer simply to “suppression,” which may just as well result from
`
`B. longum’s documented ability to metabolize and sequester the carcinogen
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s citations shift from exhibit page numbers in the Petition to
`
`printed page numbers in the Reply. Exhibit page 6 of Singh corresponds to
`
`printed page 838.
`
`3 The beginning of Petitioner’s quotation occurs 11 lines up from the bottom
`
`of the left column on page 838 (exhibit page 6). The end of it occurs over 40
`
`lines later, or 12 lines up from the end of the continuation paragraph in the
`
`right column.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`AOM. PO Resp. 48; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 99.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s evidence that the art
`
`specifically criticized and warned against using AOM-induced carcinogenesis
`
`models in the way Singh did precisely because Singh’s methodology cannot
`
`distinguish between anti-tumor and anti-carcinogen effects. PO Resp. 48
`
`(citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 99; Ex. 2069, 9–10).
`
`Petitioner particularly calls out Lee (Ex. 1011)’s description of Singh
`
`as evidence that “Bifidobacterium spp. . . . stimulate immune function and
`
`anti-tumor effects.” Reply 19–20 (quoting Ex. 1011, 6). But as discussed
`
`above, a statement is not true simply because it is printed in a research paper,
`
`even a peer-reviewed one. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that
`
`Singh speculates about B. longum’s mechanism of action but reaches no
`
`conclusion. PO Resp. 46–47; Ex. 2007 ¶ 95. Singh’s speculations do not
`
`become facts simply because Lee repackages them that way.
`
`Petitioner’s rationale for combination is predicated on a POSA’s
`
`knowledge that B. longum is immunostimulatory. Pet. 50–51. But Singh’s
`
`speculations about mechanism do not rise to the level of a clear disclosure that
`
`B. longum is immunostimulatory. Thus Singh did not supply the POSA with
`
`knowledge that B. longum is immunostimulatory. Subsequent authors’
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`citations to Singh do not ameliorate this basic failure of proof.
`
`Petitioner also provides no analysis or discussion in its Reply of Patent
`
`Owner’s critique of Dong, the other reference Petitioner relies on as evidence
`
`that B. longum is immunostimulatory. Petitioner instead attempts to
`
`incorporate its expert analysis at Reply 10 n. 7 with no explanation. This
`
`unexplained incorporation violates the rule against incorporation by reference
`
`and also circumvents the type volume limit. Paper 25, 4.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on
`
`Korman, Singh, and Dong should be rejected.
`
`Concerning claim 9, Petitioner’s analysis rests entirely on an
`
`unexplained and unsubstantiated statement by Dr. Braun that separating two
`
`administrations of bacterial formulation by at least one week “would have
`
`been considered routine optimization.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 179 (claim chart at page
`
`79/186). As Patent Owner explained in the Response, Petitioner may not rely
`
`on expert testimony as a substitute for disclosure in a prior-art reference. PO
`
`Resp. 60–61.
`
`B. Korman/Kohwi – Grounds 5–8
`Petitioner leaves Patent Owner’s detailed showing of Kohwi’s
`
`irreproducibility entirely unrebutted.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner showed that Kohwi conducted essentially the same
`
`experiment twice: inoculating mice with 100×103 tumor cells and one day
`
`later with either 109 B. infantis cell injections or saline. PO Resp. 63–65;
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 136–138. The experimental conditions were identical, according
`
`to Kohwi. PO Resp. 64; Ex. 2007 ¶ 137.
`
`Yet one run of the experiment produced a significant difference
`
`between B. infantis and saline, while the other did not. PO Resp. 64–65;
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 139–140. Thus the experimental result was not reproducible.
`
`Because it was not reproducible, Dr. Mani concluded that Kohwi’s results
`
`were not reliable, because reproducibility is the bedrock of scientific inquiry,
`
`and a non-reproducible result must be the product of either random chance or
`
`uncontrolled experimental conditions. PO Resp. 65; Ex. 2007 ¶ 139.
`
`Petitioner has not attempted to show that any part of Patent Owner’s
`
`assessment of Kohwi’s irreproducibility is in error. Petitioner’s only response
`
`is to argue that a POSA would have been blind to Kohwi’s statistical
`
`discrepancies because other peer-reviewed papers cite Kohwi as evidence that
`
`Bifidobacterium have anti-tumor and immunomodulatory properties. Reply
`
`22. Petitioner simply ignores Dr. Mani’s testimony that the person of ordinary
`
`skill would have lacked confidence in Kohwi’s study and would have
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`concluded that Kohwi was not evidence of antitumor or immunostimulatory
`
`effects of Bifidobacterium, because Kohwi was unable to reproduce its results.
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 136.
`
`Furthermore, Kohwi’s discussion of its results is speculative, as
`
`Petitioner acknowledges in quoting Kohwi as stating that Bifidobacterium
`
`“may” have effects on the immune response. Reply 23, last para. But
`
`Petitioner relied on Kohwi as hard fact of the immunostimulatory nature of
`
`Bifidobacterium to support both its rationale for combination and reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Pet. 60–62. Petitioner’s alternative rationale, that a
`
`POSA would have known that checkpoint inhibitors and Bifidobacterium both
`
`had antitumor properties (Reply 24), is not supported by evidence, because
`
`Kohwi’s statistical discrepancies would have prevented the POSA from
`
`drawing that conclusion about Bifidobacterium. Ex. 2007 ¶ 136. Regardless
`
`of which rationale Petitioner relies on, Petitioner does not explain how
`
`Kohwi’s speculations about possible mechanisms for B. infantis would have
`
`been interpreted by a POSA as concrete fact. Patent Owner raised this issue
`
`in detail in its Response and showed that Kohwi hypothesized several
`
`alternative explanations for its results. PO Resp. 65–69. Petitioner does not
`
`respond to this argument and instead continues to rely on Kohwi’s
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`speculations as fact. Reply 23. Petitioner even mischaracterizes as fact Patent
`
`Owner’s discussion of Kohwi’s speculations. Id. (omitting from its quotation
`
`from PO Resp. 68 the phrase “Kohwi speculates that”).
`
`Thus, because Kohwi’s data is irreproducible and its conclusions are
`
`speculative, a POSA would not have relied on Kohwi as a teaching that
`
`B. infantis has anti-tumor effects or is immunostimulatory. Petitioner’s
`
`rationale for combination and reasonable expectation of success theory both
`
`depend critically on these assertions, however, and therefore lack basis in
`
`evidence. Petitioner’s challenge based on Korman and Kohwi should be
`
`rejected for this reason.
`
`Regarding claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, and 26: Petitioner does not
`
`respond to the substance of Patent Owner’s arguments. In particular, for
`
`claims 5, 6, 23, and 24, rather than respond to Patent Owner’s arguments,
`
`Petitioner propounds a new theory with new evidence in its Reply. Reply 24.
`
`Petitioner thereby deprives Patent Owner of a meaningful opportunity to
`
`present its own expert testimony. This new argument and evidence should be
`
`discarded for that reason.
`
`C. Korman/Mohania/Prakash – Grounds 9–11
`Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s argument that Mohania’s
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`DMH-induced cancer model, like Singh’s AOM-induced model, cannot
`
`distinguish between anti-tumor and anti-carcinogen effects. See Ex. 2069, 9–
`
`10. Further, Petitioner acknowledges that Mohania speculates on a number
`
`of possible mechanisms without ruling any of them in or out. Reply 25–26
`
`(quoting Mohania).
`
`Petitioner then argues that Mohania does not definitively show that
`
`anticarcinogen effects account for Mohania’s findings. Reply 26, second full
`
`para. But Petitioner here has the burden of proof exactly backwards. It is not
`
`for Patent Owner to prove that Mohania rules in anticarcinogen effects as the
`
`exclusive mechanism. Rather, it was for Petitioner to rule it out. Petitioner
`
`thus has not satisfied its burden of proof under 36 U.S.C. § 326(e).
`
`Finally, Petitioner attempts to salvage its argument based on Mohania
`
`by advancing new evidence. But this new evidence— Dr. Braun’s
`
`interpretation of Mohania Figure 2— contradicts his earlier testimony.
`
`Petitioner now argues that “Inspection of [Mohania] Fig. 2 reveals that in
`
`parallel with epithelial cells, more PD-1 stained lymphocytes are observed in
`
`DMH-treated tissue.” Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1043 ¶ 97). This argument is
`
`inconsistent with Dr. Braun’s testimony at deposition that Mohania does not
`
`show that T-infiltrating lymphocytes express PD-1 (Ex. 2033, 44:17–19) and
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`that his interpretation of Mohania is that it “doesn’t detail the question” of
`
`whether increased expression of PD-1 reported is by activated T cells (id.
`
`44:20–45:3).
`
`Dr. Braun’s new testimony should be discarded because it is untimely
`
`and unexplained. Petitioner does not explain why it could not have presented
`
`this evidence in its Petition, at a time when Patent Owner would have had a
`
`meaningful opportunity to respond to it with expert testimony. Nor does
`
`Dr. Braun explain how he conducted his analysis of Mohania Figure 2.
`
`Dr. Braun does not explain, or provide an annotated version of Figure 2 to
`
`illustrate, how he distinguished epithelial cells from T cells or what he
`
`considered the threshold to be to consider a cell stained. Dr. Braun also does
`
`not explain why, even if a POSA would