Strategic Intellectual Property Protection

Strategic Intellectual Property Protection

Strategic Intellectual Property Protection

Hsiu-Ming Saunders, Ph.D, J.D.

Attorney at Law

U.S. Tel: (650) 610-9136

[email protected]

Aug. 2007

Hsiu-Ming Saunders, Ph.D, J.D.

Attorney at Law

U.S. Tel: (650) 610-9136

[email protected]

Aug. 2007

2

Table of Contents Table of Contents

•What is a Patent?

•Patent Value Proposition

•Two Prongs of Patent Strategy

•Patent Process

•Budgeting

•Overcoming Examiner Rejections – Real cases

•Problems encountered by Asian inventors in Applying for U.S. Patent Applications

•What is a Patent?

•Patent Value Proposition

•Two Prongs of Patent Strategy

•Patent Process

•Budgeting

•Overcoming Examiner Rejections – Real cases

•Problems encountered by Asian inventors in Applying for U.S. Patent Applications

3

What is a Patent? What is a Patent?

•Patent types- Utility- Design- Plant

•Patent types- Utility- Design- Plant

Patentable Subject matterPatentable Subject matter

•“machine” - apparatus, e.g., a medical device

•“process” – e.g., a method for treating diabetes or making a chemical compound

•“article of manufacture” – e.g., an isolated DNA, Protein, or peptide, or a chemical compound.

•“composition” – e.g., a pharmaceutical composition

•“machine” - apparatus, e.g., a medical device

•“process” – e.g., a method for treating diabetes or making a chemical compound

•“article of manufacture” – e.g., an isolated DNA, Protein, or peptide, or a chemical compound.

•“composition” – e.g., a pharmaceutical composition

4

Patentability Patentability

•New

•Nonobvious

•Utility

•New

•Nonobvious

•Utility

5

6

Patent Rights and Remedies for Infringement Patent Rights and Remedies for Infringement

• Right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented technology

• Injunction, damages in form of lost profits or reasonable royalty, tripled for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, costs

• Right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented technology

• Injunction, damages in form of lost profits or reasonable royalty, tripled for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, costs

7

Patent Value Proposition Patent Value Proposition

•Defensive use of portfolio– Counter infringement charges– Prevent others from patenting

•Offensive use of portfolio– Derive Revenue – Prevent others from engaging in company’s

business

• Increase Valuation of Your Company

•Attract investors

•Defensive use of portfolio– Counter infringement charges– Prevent others from patenting

•Offensive use of portfolio– Derive Revenue – Prevent others from engaging in company’s

business

• Increase Valuation of Your Company

•Attract investors

8

Contents of U.S. Patent Application Contents of U.S. Patent Application

•Title of the Invention

•Background of the Invention

•Field of the Invention

•Summary of the Invention

•Brief Description of Drawings

•Detailed Description of the Invention

•Claims

•Abstract

•Drawings

•Title of the Invention

•Background of the Invention

•Field of the Invention

•Summary of the Invention

•Brief Description of Drawings

•Detailed Description of the Invention

•Claims

•Abstract

•Drawings

9

Two Prongs of Patent Strategy Two Prongs of Patent Strategy

•Defensive Use

•Patent Portfolio Building - create value for the company

•Defensive Use

•Patent Portfolio Building - create value for the company

10

Patent Portfolio Philosophy Patent Portfolio Philosophy

•Obtain strong, enforceable patents

•Build the highest quality patent portfolio

•Obtain strong, enforceable patents

•Build the highest quality patent portfolio

11

Obtaining Valuable Patents Obtaining Valuable Patents

•Pioneer technology or major improvement– Invention creates new industry – Invention is so new

•Roadblocks– competitors must infringe patent to carry out their

enterprises

•Widespread applications – across many different industries

•Easy to Detect Infringement – claims that are easy to read on competitors’

device or process

•Pioneer technology or major improvement– Invention creates new industry – Invention is so new

•Roadblocks– competitors must infringe patent to carry out their

enterprises

•Widespread applications – across many different industries

•Easy to Detect Infringement – claims that are easy to read on competitors’

device or process

12

Patent Process Overview Patent Process Overview

Phase 1: Set Up Company Infrastructure for Patenting

Phase 2: Invention Discovery - Patenting Decision

Phase 3: Patent Preparation and Filing Phase

Phase 4: Patent Prosecution Phase

Phase 5: Patent Maintenance and Exploitation Phase

Phase 1: Set Up Company Infrastructure for Patenting

Phase 2: Invention Discovery - Patenting Decision

Phase 3: Patent Preparation and Filing Phase

Phase 4: Patent Prosecution Phase

Phase 5: Patent Maintenance and Exploitation Phase

13

Who is involved in the patent process? Who is involved in the patent process?

•Patent Coordinator

•Patent Committee

•Company Development Team

•Patent Legal Counsel

•Patent Examiners

•Patent Coordinator

•Patent Committee

•Company Development Team

•Patent Legal Counsel

•Patent Examiners

PATENT TIMELINEPATENT TIMELINE

PHASE I

ImplementationStrategy

PHASE II

Discovery ofPatentableTechnology

PHASE III

PatentApplicationPreparation

PHASE IV

PatentProsecution

PHASE V

PatentIssuance

& Exploitation

One-year U.S. grace period

Most countries other than U.S. do not have grace period

Must file for patent protection before first public disclosure, public use or certain commercial activity.

Non-U.S. Applications-

PCT Applications topreserve foreign

rights

Patent Prosecution Patent Exploitation

U.S. provisional/nonprovisional

application filing date to preserve U.S. rights

PatentIssuance

1 year 2 - 3 years 17 -18 yearsPublic disclosure/public use/ commercial activity involving

invention

Deadline forfiling in many

countries

Deadline for

filing U.S.patent

application

Publication 18 months after earliest filing date,

either U.S. provisional, U.S. nonprovisional, or non-U.S. patent application filing

If no non-U.S. patent filings will be made, may request non-publication in U.S. until patent issuance)

15

Budgeting for Patents(U.S. Dollars, estimated)Budgeting for Patents(U.S. Dollars, estimated)

1. U.S. Application Budgeting

• Patent search cost $500-1,000

• Search report and analysis $2,500-5,000

• Prepare patent application,specification, claims, drawings, assignment of patent rights, information disclosure statement and cited documents (costs dependent on complexity of subject matter, number of different inventions, bar dates, closeness of art) $10,000-40,000

• Patent prosecution (per application) $5,000-15,000

1. U.S. Application Budgeting

• Patent search cost $500-1,000

• Search report and analysis $2,500-5,000

• Prepare patent application,specification, claims, drawings, assignment of patent rights, information disclosure statement and cited documents (costs dependent on complexity of subject matter, number of different inventions, bar dates, closeness of art) $10,000-40,000

• Patent prosecution (per application) $5,000-15,000

2. International Application Budgeting– Filing costs, per additional country (costs per

country vary greatly) $2,000 - 30,000

– Prosecution costs $5,000 - 15,000

– Annuity fees (yearly) $200 - 1,000

2. International Application Budgeting– Filing costs, per additional country (costs per

country vary greatly) $2,000 - 30,000

– Prosecution costs $5,000 - 15,000

– Annuity fees (yearly) $200 - 1,000

16

Budgeting for Patents(U.S. Dollars, estimated)Budgeting for Patents(U.S. Dollars, estimated)

17

Practical Considerations of Patent Portfolio DevelopmentPractical Considerations of Patent Portfolio Development

•Disclosure – must fully disclose the invention to the public in return for monopoly (is trade secret protection more effective?)

•Cost – patents can be expensive to procure and maintain and are even expensive to enforce

•Time – inventors and others in company must invest time in process to obtain and enforce patents

•Process – patents generally require 2 - 4 years to obtain

•Possible Loss of Patent Rights – company must monitor sales efforts, publications, or other events that might result in loss of patent rights

•Disclosure – must fully disclose the invention to the public in return for monopoly (is trade secret protection more effective?)

•Cost – patents can be expensive to procure and maintain and are even expensive to enforce

•Time – inventors and others in company must invest time in process to obtain and enforce patents

•Process – patents generally require 2 - 4 years to obtain

•Possible Loss of Patent Rights – company must monitor sales efforts, publications, or other events that might result in loss of patent rights

Overcoming Examiner’s Rejections – Real case illustrationsOvercoming Examiner’s Rejections – Real case illustrations

•Restriction Requirement

•Obviousness Rejection

•Enablement Rejection

•Written Description Rejection

•Restriction Requirement

•Obviousness Rejection

•Enablement Rejection

•Written Description Rejection

18

Restriction RequirementRestriction Requirement

•What is it? (group election, species election)

•Examiner’s position

•Applicant’s position

•Patent Attorney’s position

• Response:– Elect

– without traverse– with traverse

•What is it? (group election, species election)

•Examiner’s position

•Applicant’s position

•Patent Attorney’s position

• Response:– Elect

– without traverse– with traverse

19

Restriction Requirement: Real Case illustrationRestriction Requirement: Real Case illustration

U.S. Application No. 10/893,551

Title: “Compositions of Protein Mimetics and Methods of Using Same Against HIV-1, Sars-Cov and the Like”

Claim:

A protein mimetic for preventing HIV entry into a host cell comprising:

a. at lest two peptide strands, and b. an interstrand linker coupling the

peptide strands


Title: “Compositions of Protein Mimetics and Methods of Using Same Against HIV-1, Sars-Cov and the Like”

Claim:

A protein mimetic for preventing HIV entry into a host cell comprising:

a. at lest two peptide strands, and b. an interstrand linker coupling the

peptide strands

20

Peptide strand:Peptide strand:

T1249 WMEWYTSLIHSLIEESQNQQEKNEQELLELDKWASLWNWF

C34 WMEWDREINNYTSLIHSLIEESQNQQEKNEQELL

DP178 YTSLIHSLIEESQNQQEKNEQELLELDKWASLWNWF




21

Interstrand linker structure IInterstrand linker structure I

22

Interstrand linker structure IIInterstrand linker structure II

23

Restriction Requirement from the Examiner:Restriction Requirement from the Examiner:

“ [r]estriction to one of the following inventions is required . . . :

I. Claims 1-15, 23-29, 30-37 and 45-51 are drawn to a protein mimetic comprised of two peptides covalently linked together and capable of inhibiting fusion of two separate membranes, classified in class 530, subclass 332.

II. Claims 16-22 and 38-44, drawn to a method for preventing or treating HIV-1 using the pharmacological composition of Group I, classified in class 514, subclass 2.”

“ [r]estriction to one of the following inventions is required . . . :

I. Claims 1-15, 23-29, 30-37 and 45-51 are drawn to a protein mimetic comprised of two peptides covalently linked together and capable of inhibiting fusion of two separate membranes, classified in class 530, subclass 332.

II. Claims 16-22 and 38-44, drawn to a method for preventing or treating HIV-1 using the pharmacological composition of Group I, classified in class 514, subclass 2.”

24

Restriction RequirementRestriction Requirement

The Examiner also stated that:“[n]o matter which group is elected, a further

election of species is required. This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: Various peptidomimetics (see for example claims 3-5).”

The Examiner also stated that:“[n]o matter which group is elected, a further

election of species is required. This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: Various peptidomimetics (see for example claims 3-5).”

25

Arguments: These peptide strands are not patentably distinct species

Arguments: These peptide strands are not patentably distinct species

26




•Contain the same amino acid fragment 638-662; and

• DP178 is a partial fragment of T1249




•Contain the same amino acid fragment 638-662; and

• DP178 is a partial fragment of T1249

Arguments: Interstrand linkers of Formula I and II are not patentably distinct because

Arguments: Interstrand linkers of Formula I and II are not patentably distinct because

They belong to the same genus of the compound of the formula depicted below:

Formula III

They belong to the same genus of the compound of the formula depicted below:

Formula III

27

X C

O

ßAla Lys

C=O

X

Gly

(Lys)n

C=O

X

R

Successful OutcomeSuccessful Outcome

•The arguments overcame the species election requirement.

“Applicant’s election with traverse of invention I . . . is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that peptide T1249 and C34 are not patentably distinct from the elected peptide DP179; linker I and II are not patentably distinct. This is found persuasive because of applicants’ arguments.”

•The arguments overcame the species election requirement.

“Applicant’s election with traverse of invention I . . . is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that peptide T1249 and C34 are not patentably distinct from the elected peptide DP179; linker I and II are not patentably distinct. This is found persuasive because of applicants’ arguments.”

28

Overcoming Rejections under Enablement, written description, obviousnessOvercoming Rejections under Enablement, written description, obviousness


“Anti-Thrombotic Thrombin Variants”

Invention: (claim 1 as illustration)

1. A variant thrombin comprising an amino acid sequence having the substitutions W215A and E217A, wherein the amino acid sequence is at least 80% identical to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 3.


“Anti-Thrombotic Thrombin Variants”

Invention: (claim 1 as illustration)

1. A variant thrombin comprising an amino acid sequence having the substitutions W215A and E217A, wherein the amino acid sequence is at least 80% identical to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 3.

29

In Office Action Feb. 21, 2006, Examiner rejected all claimsIn Office Action Feb. 21, 2006, Examiner rejected all claims

•Enablement Rejection– while being enabling for the thrombin variant of SEQ

ID NO:3, does not reasonably provide enablement for a thrombin variant that has substitutions W215 and E217 and is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:3.

•Written Description Rejection– The specification does not contain any disclosure of

the function of all said polypeptides.

•Obviousness Rejection– rejected as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al., 1995

in view of Arosio et al., 2000 (IDS) or Ayala et al., 2001.

– Examiner asserted: suggestion and motivation to combine is based on skilled artisan’s desire to provide a thrombin variant with enhanced protein C activity and decreased fibrinogen cleavage.

•Enablement Rejection– while being enabling for the thrombin variant of SEQ

ID NO:3, does not reasonably provide enablement for a thrombin variant that has substitutions W215 and E217 and is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:3.

•Written Description Rejection– The specification does not contain any disclosure of

the function of all said polypeptides.

•Obviousness Rejection– rejected as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al., 1995

in view of Arosio et al., 2000 (IDS) or Ayala et al., 2001.

– Examiner asserted: suggestion and motivation to combine is based on skilled artisan’s desire to provide a thrombin variant with enhanced protein C activity and decreased fibrinogen cleavage. 30

Argued in June 20, 2006 Response:Argued in June 20, 2006 Response:

•Enablement

One of ordinary skilled in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation

(1) Nature of the invention (2) Breadth of claims (3) Guidance (4) Working Examples (5) Quantity of experimentation necessary (6) Relative skill of those in the art

•Enablement

One of ordinary skilled in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation

(1) Nature of the invention (2) Breadth of claims (3) Guidance (4) Working Examples (5) Quantity of experimentation necessary (6) Relative skill of those in the art

31

Argued in June 20, 2006 ResponseArgued in June 20, 2006 Response

Insufficient Written Description:

The working examples disclosed in the specification are representative to the function of the claimed thrombin variants. Further, the specification has detail descriptions of making and testing WE thrombin variants. Thus, Applicants had contemplated and possessed the claimed invention at the time when the application was filed.

Insufficient Written Description:

The working examples disclosed in the specification are representative to the function of the claimed thrombin variants. Further, the specification has detail descriptions of making and testing WE thrombin variants. Thus, Applicants had contemplated and possessed the claimed invention at the time when the application was filed.

32

Argued in June 20, 2006 ResponseArgued in June 20, 2006 Response

Obviousness– Neither reference provides any suggestion or

motivation for making a thrombin variant that has two substitutions, let alone two substitutions W215A and E217A.

– Claimed invention is non-obvious because of the unexpected properties.

– The combination product WE has an synergy effect on reducing the release of fibrinopeptides A and B. See Tables 1 and 2» (Fibrinogen: E217A: W215A:WE =

0.27:0.034:0.00089; Fibrin: E217A: W215A:WE = 0.15:0.053:0.0021)

– Contrary to the examiner’s assertion, the combination of E217 and W215A produces a dramatically decreased, rather than enhanced, protein C activity. See Table 2 data for Protein C + TM (E217A:W215A:WE = 140:75:33).

Obviousness– Neither reference provides any suggestion or

motivation for making a thrombin variant that has two substitutions, let alone two substitutions W215A and E217A.

– Claimed invention is non-obvious because of the unexpected properties.

– The combination product WE has an synergy effect on reducing the release of fibrinopeptides A and B. See Tables 1 and 2» (Fibrinogen: E217A: W215A:WE =

0.27:0.034:0.00089; Fibrin: E217A: W215A:WE = 0.15:0.053:0.0021)

– Contrary to the examiner’s assertion, the combination of E217 and W215A produces a dramatically decreased, rather than enhanced, protein C activity. See Table 2 data for Protein C + TM (E217A:W215A:WE = 140:75:33). 33

Final Office Action Aug. 24, 2006: Examiner maintained rejectionsFinal Office Action Aug. 24, 2006: Examiner maintained rejections

•Enablement– “determining which of all polypeptides having at least

80% homology to SEQ ID NO: 3 have the desired activity would require undue experimentation.”

• Insufficient written description– Claim 1 fails to provide any functional limitations for

the recited thrombin variants. Therefore, the polypeptides encompassed by the recited genus have any or no activity.

•Enablement– “determining which of all polypeptides having at least

80% homology to SEQ ID NO: 3 have the desired activity would require undue experimentation.”

• Insufficient written description– Claim 1 fails to provide any functional limitations for

the recited thrombin variants. Therefore, the polypeptides encompassed by the recited genus have any or no activity.

34

In Final Office Action Aug. 24, 2006, Examiner maintained rejectionsIn Final Office Action Aug. 24, 2006, Examiner maintained rejections

•Obviousness– The “synergistic effect is not unexpected” and that

“many enzymes have allosteric sites that act synergistically in both the activation and inhibition of the enzyme.” Citing Metzler et al (2001).

– “The skilled artisan would know that it is the ratio of protein C activity to fibrinogen clotting activity (PA/FC), not the absolute protein C activity, that determines whether the action of thrombin will be primarily anti-coagulation, via the activation of protein C, or procoagulation, via cleavage of thrombin*.” (*: fibrinogen)

•Obviousness– The “synergistic effect is not unexpected” and that

“many enzymes have allosteric sites that act synergistically in both the activation and inhibition of the enzyme.” Citing Metzler et al (2001).

– “The skilled artisan would know that it is the ratio of protein C activity to fibrinogen clotting activity (PA/FC), not the absolute protein C activity, that determines whether the action of thrombin will be primarily anti-coagulation, via the activation of protein C, or procoagulation, via cleavage of thrombin*.” (*: fibrinogen)

35

Response to the Final Office Action: Vigorously Refuted Examiner’s points Response to the Final Office Action: Vigorously Refuted Examiner’s points

•Enablement and written description:– Amended claim 1 to require the variant thrombin

W215A/E217A having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID No: 3

•Obviousness:– The invention E217A/W215A possesses unexpected

synergistic properties as shown in the attached Exhibit A.

– addressed and Refuted Examiner’s each point by citing scientific authority

•Enablement and written description:– Amended claim 1 to require the variant thrombin

W215A/E217A having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID No: 3

•Obviousness:– The invention E217A/W215A possesses unexpected

synergistic properties as shown in the attached Exhibit A.

– addressed and Refuted Examiner’s each point by citing scientific authority

36

Exhibit AThe invention Shows Synergistic Results

(From Tables 1 and 2, see Specification, pages 48 and 50)

Exhibit AThe invention Shows Synergistic Results

(From Tables 1 and 2, see Specification, pages 48 and 50)

Property E217A W215A WE

PA/FC * 40.06 170 2865

Fibrinogen kcat/Km (µM-1s-1)

0.27 0.034 0.00089

Fibrin kcat/Km (µM-1s-1)

0.15 0.053 0.0021

Protein C + TMkcat/Km (µM-1s-1)

0.14 0.075 0.033

PAR1kcat/Km (µM-1s-1)

0.66 1 0.026

Antithrombin IIIkon (µM-1s-1)d

1 0.56 0.0040

37

Comparative Data Between Cited References and the Invention (Exhibit A continued)

Comparative Data Between Cited References and the Invention (Exhibit A continued)

Property Primary Reference

E229A (E217A)

Secondary Reference

W215A

Invention

WE

PA/FC * 19.1 170 2865

38

*PA/FC here are calculated from the data shown in Tables 1 and 2. The term "PA/FC ratio" as used herein refers to the ratio of the percent of wild-type protein C activation (PA) activity remaining in a thrombin variant relative to the percent of wild-type fibrinogen clotting (FC) activity remaining in the thrombin variant. A value of PA/FC greater than 1.0 indicates that the thrombin variant has reduced procoagulant fibrinogen cleavage activity relative to the residual anticoagulant activity resulting from protein C activation.

Response to the Final Office Action: Vigorously Refuted Examiner’s points Response to the Final Office Action: Vigorously Refuted Examiner’s points

• The life science/Biotechnology being in the area of unpredictable art, a synergistic effect cannot reasonably or necessarily be expected from allosteric sites.– McLennan reported that Hemoglobin has three

allosteric sites, and their interactions are non-synergistic but are simply additive. See attached Abstract (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology International, Vol. 44, No. 1, pages 175-183, 1998).

– Rao G.S. reported that Ascaris suumphosphofructokinase has two allosteric sites, one for fructose 2,6-biphosphate and one for AMP, and that their effects on the enzyme are additive and not synergistic. See attached Abstract (Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 365, No. 2, pages 335-343(9), 1999.)

• The life science/Biotechnology being in the area of unpredictable art, a synergistic effect cannot reasonably or necessarily be expected from allosteric sites.– McLennan reported that Hemoglobin has three

allosteric sites, and their interactions are non-synergistic but are simply additive. See attached Abstract (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology International, Vol. 44, No. 1, pages 175-183, 1998).

– Rao G.S. reported that Ascaris suumphosphofructokinase has two allosteric sites, one for fructose 2,6-biphosphate and one for AMP, and that their effects on the enzyme are additive and not synergistic. See attached Abstract (Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 365, No. 2, pages 335-343(9), 1999.) 39

Vigorously Refuted Examiner’s points in Response to the Final Office ActionVigorously Refuted Examiner’s points in Response to the Final Office Action

•Examiner shifted the basis of motivation after Applicants had responded by pointing out that the combination of E217A and W215A produced a decreased, rather than enhanced protein C activity.

• if the motivation to combine the two references were really that obvious as the Examiner alleged, the Examiner would have asserted the motivation based on the skilled artisan's desire to provide an enhanced PC/PF ratio at the first place, rather than alleged “the skilled artisan's desire to provide a thrombin variant with enhanced protein C activation.

•Examiner shifted the basis of motivation after Applicants had responded by pointing out that the combination of E217A and W215A produced a decreased, rather than enhanced protein C activity.

• if the motivation to combine the two references were really that obvious as the Examiner alleged, the Examiner would have asserted the motivation based on the skilled artisan's desire to provide an enhanced PC/PF ratio at the first place, rather than alleged “the skilled artisan's desire to provide a thrombin variant with enhanced protein C activation.

40


•Enablement and written description rejection were withdrawn for the following reasons. “The means by which the function of thrombin

is regulated by its structure has been well characterized (Tsiang et al, 1995; Richardson et al, 2000). Therefore, it would not be undue experimentatikon for the skilled artisan to make and use the full scope of the recited thrombin variants; Applicants were in possession of their recited invention.”

•Enablement and written description rejection were withdrawn for the following reasons. “The means by which the function of thrombin

is regulated by its structure has been well characterized (Tsiang et al, 1995; Richardson et al, 2000). Therefore, it would not be undue experimentatikon for the skilled artisan to make and use the full scope of the recited thrombin variants; Applicants were in possession of their recited invention.”

41


•Overcame obviousness rejection– “The extent of synergy resulting from the double

W215A+E217A mutation is far greater than expected. As disclosed by Applicant’s analysis in Exhibit A, filed Jan. 18, 2007, the single mutation E217A gives a PA/FC of 19.1 (Gibbs et al; Table 1), the single mutation W215A gives a PA/FC of 170 (Arosio et al; Table 1), while Applicants’ W215A_E217A thrombin variant has a PA/FC of 2865. Such dramatic synergy is far greater than expected and, as such, the unexpected results overcome the prior obviousness rejection (MPEP 716.02(c)). For these reasons, rejections of Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16-18, 44 and 45 under 35 USC 103(a). . . is withdrawn.

•Overcame obviousness rejection– “The extent of synergy resulting from the double

W215A+E217A mutation is far greater than expected. As disclosed by Applicant’s analysis in Exhibit A, filed Jan. 18, 2007, the single mutation E217A gives a PA/FC of 19.1 (Gibbs et al; Table 1), the single mutation W215A gives a PA/FC of 170 (Arosio et al; Table 1), while Applicants’ W215A_E217A thrombin variant has a PA/FC of 2865. Such dramatic synergy is far greater than expected and, as such, the unexpected results overcome the prior obviousness rejection (MPEP 716.02(c)). For these reasons, rejections of Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16-18, 44 and 45 under 35 USC 103(a). . . is withdrawn.

42


Patent granted and issued May 29, 2007U.S. 7,223,583 “Antithrombotic thrombin variants”

Claim 1. A protein comprising a variant thrombin, wherein the variant thrombin is at least 80% identical to the sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 3 and comprises the residues corresponding to Ala263 and Ala265 of SEQ ID NO: 3, and wherein the variant thrombin has a PA/FC ratio greater than 1.0.

Patent granted and issued May 29, 2007U.S. 7,223,583 “Antithrombotic thrombin variants”

Claim 1. A protein comprising a variant thrombin, wherein the variant thrombin is at least 80% identical to the sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 3 and comprises the residues corresponding to Ala263 and Ala265 of SEQ ID NO: 3, and wherein the variant thrombin has a PA/FC ratio greater than 1.0.

43

Asian Inventors Applying for U.S. Patents Asian Inventors Applying for U.S. Patents

•Problems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good U.S. Patent Lawyer

•Problems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good U.S. Patent Lawyer

44

•Disparity with American Clients in the Quality and Amount of Attention Obtained

•Language and Cultural Barriers Obstruct the Flow of Communications

•Mistakenly Hiring a Poor or Incompetent Patent Counsel

• Inadequacy- Counsel fails to help the client to make an informed decision.

• Incompetence: Counsel fails to understand the invention, lacks the technical background to prosecute the patent application.

•Disparity with American Clients in the Quality and Amount of Attention Obtained

•Language and Cultural Barriers Obstruct the Flow of Communications

•Mistakenly Hiring a Poor or Incompetent Patent Counsel

• Inadequacy- Counsel fails to help the client to make an informed decision.

• Incompetence: Counsel fails to understand the invention, lacks the technical background to prosecute the patent application.

45

Intellectual Property Protectionsin the U.S.: Problems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good Patent Lawyer

Intellectual Property Protectionsin the U.S.: Problems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good Patent Lawyer

Mingsaun

•Counsel asks clients what to do without telling them what the options are and their implications.

•Counsel misses essential information in writing patent applications.

•Counsel fails to be a zealous advocate for clients, causing loss of patent coverage or potential invalidation.

•Counsel asks clients what to do without telling them what the options are and their implications.

•Counsel misses essential information in writing patent applications.

•Counsel fails to be a zealous advocate for clients, causing loss of patent coverage or potential invalidation.

46

Problems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good Patent Lawyer – Real ExamplesProblems Asian Clients Have in Finding a Good Patent Lawyer – Real Examples

47

Taiwanese Invention

48

Taiwanese InventionPrior Art (Brownell)

Examiner’s Novelty Rejection:

1. (Currently amended): A heat sink, comprising:

a substrate having a predetermined shape and having a first pivoting portion on a predetermined portion thereof;

a heat scattering member . . .; and

a clip member for . . .,

and wherein the substrate is made of a ductile material and the first pivoting portion is mold by pressing at bottoms of opposite sides of the substrate.

1. (Currently amended): A heat sink, comprising:

a substrate having a predetermined shape and having a first pivoting portion on a predetermined portion thereof;

a heat scattering member . . .; and

a clip member for . . .,

and wherein the substrate is made of a ductile material and the first pivoting portion is mold by pressing at bottoms of opposite sides of the substrate.

49

Poor Patent Strategy: Surrender scope of the invention without Any Fight (1st Office Action)

*The patent application states: “The substrate 12 has two pairs of first pivoting portions 20 on bottom of the opposite sides respectively.” ---- (problem: Chinese English)

Telephone: 404-504-7688Mobile: 651-235-7129Facsimile: 404.365.9532E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Address: 299 Old County Road, Suite 28, San Carlos, CA 94070

Telephone: 404-504-7688Mobile: 651-235-7129Facsimile: 404.365.9532E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Address: 299 Old County Road, Suite 28, San Carlos, CA 94070

Hsiu-Ming Saunders, Ph.D.

IPC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONNECTIONS IPC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONNECTIONS

Documents

Strategic Intellectual Property Protection