Ex Parte MORADIAN-OLDAK et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201814142086 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/142,086 12/27/2013 22045 7590 09/19/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Janet MORADIAN-OLDAK UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. USC01 l 8PUSP 7905 EXAMINER WEBB, WALTERE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@brookskushman.com kdilucia@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JANET MORADIAN-OLD AK and QICHAO RUAN 1 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 Technology Center 1600 Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and TA WEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a composition for treating dental caries, early dental carious and erosive lesions, and enamel defects resulting from genetic diseases, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the University of Southern California as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 STATEMENT OF THE CASE "Enamel is the exterior layer of the mammalian tooth. . . . Mature enamel is non-living and cannot regenerate itself after substantial mineral loss, which often occurs as dental caries or erosion." (Spec. ,r 5.) According to the Specification, "conventional treatments for carious lesions include refilling with amorphous materials like amalgam, ceramics or composite resin," but secondary caries often arise after such treatments "at the interface between the original enamel and filling materials due to weakened adhesion with time." (Id.) The Specification states that "[t]he present invention solves one or more problems of the prior art by providing a composition for re-constructing enamel-coated substrates," which "[a]dvantageously ... produce enamel-like materials that contain nano- and microstructures using amelogenin to control the crystallization of biomimetic calcium and phosphate." (Id. ,r 8.) The Specification describes amelogenin as "closely related polypeptides involved in the formation of enamel .... exemplified by SEQ ID Nos: 1-8 [and] .... alternatively spliced isoforms such as LRAP (leucine rich amelogenin polypeptide)." (Id. ,r 24). Claims 1-15 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A composition for treating dental caries, early dental carious and erosive lesions, and enamel defects resulting from genetic diseases, the composition comprising: an amelogenin; a chitosan; water; and a sufficient amount of a pH adjusting component such that the composition has a pH greater than about 6.0, the composition forming an organized mineral layer when contacting an enamel surface. 2 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 (Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.) The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 and 13-15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kamiya2 and Davison. 3 (Ans. 2.) The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Gestrelius4 and Davison. (Ans. 4.) I. Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 1-9 and 13-15 as obvious over Kamiya and Davison. The Examiner finds that Kamiya suggests a composition meeting all of the limitations of claims 1-9 and 13-15, except Kamiya does not teach a chitosan as part of its composition. (Ans. 2-3.) The Examiner finds, however, that Davison teaches a chitosan composition having "improved effect on the inhibition of cariogenic bacteria[, which when] combined with its pH buffering capacity make the chitosan compositions very effective in prevention of dental caries." (Id. at 3 ( emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).) The Examiner concludes "combining the amelogenin of Kamiya ... with the chitosan of Davison ... as claimed in the instant invention would have been prima facie obvious since they are both taught to be useful for treating dental caries" and "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose." (Id. at 4.) 2 Kamiya et al., JP 2012-167040 A, published Sept. 6, 2012 ("Kamiya"). Citations to Kamiya in the opinion refers to the translation by Schreiber Translations, Inc. dated July 2016 and made of record on Aug. 12, 2018. 3 Davison et al., US 2003/0104020 Al, published June 5, 2003 ("Davison"). 4 Gestrelius et al., US 7,294,352 B2, issued Nov. 13, 2007 ("Gestrelius"). 3 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 Appellants contend that the combination of Kamiya and Davison does not teach a composition that forms an organized mineral layer when contacting an enamel surface, as required by claim 1. ( Appeal Br. 2-3.) Appellants further contend that the subject matter of the claims exhibits unexpected results. With respect to claim 7, Appellants also contend that the claim is independently allowable because it specifically claims a composition comprising leucine rich amelogenin polypeptide (LRAP) and chitosan. Appellants do not separately argue the claims other than claim 7. We therefore limit our analysis to claims 1 and 7. The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner's conclusion that claims 1 and 7 are obvious over the combination of Kamiya and Davison and, if so, whether Appellants have provided evidence of unexpected results that, when considered together with evidence of obviousness, shows claims 1 and 7 to be nonobvious. Findings of Fact 1. Kamiya relates to "an enamel regenerating liquid and an enamel regenerating kit which are useful for causing the recalcification of enamel in the living body, thereby treating the initial dental caries and preventing dental caries." (Kamiya ,r 9; see also id. ,r 1.) 2. Kamiya teaches that its enamel regenerating liquid is "characterized by containing an amelogenin, a calcium ion and a phosphate ion." (Id. ,r 10; see also id. ,r,r 26, 39.) 3. Kamiya teaches that its enamel regenerating liquid "may be obtained by adding a calcium salt, a phosphoric acid salt, and amelogenin to water." (Id. ,r 39.) 4 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 4. Kamiya teaches that "it is preferred that a pH adjusting agent for adjusting the pH to be near the neu[t]ral point should be contained." (Id. ,r 15; see also id. ,r 37 (describing neutral pH as pH 6.0 to 8.0).) 5. Kamiya teaches that, in the enamel regenerating liquid according to its invention, an amelogenin is accumulated on the surface of enamel, thereby creating a space. On the space, a calcium ion and a phosphate ion are accumulated, thereby creating a local supersaturation, and a reaction between the calcium ion and the phosphate ion is promoted, resulting in a hydroxyapatite crystal being grown. (Id. ,r 23; see also id. ,r,r 26-29.) 6. Kamiya teaches that, "by the effect of the amelogenin, it is assumed that the crystal form is controlled." (Id. ,r 29; see also id. ,r 31.) 7. Davison teaches compositions comprising nano-sized chitosan that present improved bioactivity, solubility and other properties over traditional chitosan. (Davison ,r 1; see also id. ,r 9.) 8. Davison teaches that its composition is "capable of producing fully homogeneous formulations in the critically important physiological pH region, for example from about 5 to about 7." (Id. ,r 10; see also id. ,r,r 17 (stating that the chitosan of its invention is "soluble in aqueous solution having a pH between about 1 and about 6.3"), 28 (stating that "[i]n a preferred process embodiment, the solution is partially neutralized up to the point in which the solution becomes a precipitate suspension, the pH preferably being the range of from about 6.5 to about 7 .5, more preferably from about 6.7 to about 7.1").) 5 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 9. Davison teaches that, [ d]ue to the improve anti-microbial, substantivity, film forming and solubility properties of the chitosan compositions as well as the excellent safety profile and natural origin the chitosan compositions are suitable for use in oral and denture care including improvement of general gum and teeth health, treatment of halitosis and gingivitis, stain reduction, and for providing anti-caries, anti-plaque and anti-calculus benefits, in humans or other animals. It has been found that the chitosan compositions used herein have improved effect on the inhibition of cariogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans this effect combined with its pH buffering capacity make the chitosan compositions very effective in prevention of dental caries. (Id. ,I 117.) Analysis We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the scope and content of the prior art as they relate to claims 1 and 7 (Final Act. 3--4, 5---6; see also Ans. 2--4, 6-9; FF1-FF9) and agree that claims 1 and 7 are obvious over Kamiya and Davison. We address Appellants' arguments below. Claim 1 Appellants contend that the "organized mineral layer" recited in claim 1 is "different tha[ n] any mineral layer formed by the composition of Kamiya and Davison and, therefore, cannot be inferred from their combination." (Appeal Br. 2-3.) We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, we find that the Examiner has shown that the composition suggested by the combination of Kamiya and Davison is substantially identical to the claimed composition. Thus, we 6 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 find that the burden shifts to Appellants to show that the composition suggested by the prior art does not "necessarily or inherently possess the characteristic[]" of "forming an organized mineral layer when contacting an enamel surface." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants have not provided evidence sufficient to satisfy this burden. As to Appellants' argument that the "organized mineral layer" cannot be inferred from Kamiya and Davison, we note that "'the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art."' Id. at 1254 (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971)). In addition, Kamiya teaches that application of its amelogenin composition results in hydroxyapatite crystal being grown and further teaches that, "by the effect of the amelogenin, it is assumed that the crystal form is controlled." (FF5, FF6.) Appellants do not persuasively explain why such controlled hydroxyapatite crystal formation does not meet the limitation of "forming an organized mineral layer" as recited in claim 1. Appellants next contend that the subject matter of claim 1 exhibits unexpected results. First, citing the Oldak Declaration, 5 Appellants contend that the composition of claim 1 "is found to remineralize exposed dentinal tubules, a type of dental lesion that is distinct from dental caries and for which remineralization is practically unknown," and further contend that "compositions of the present invention are capable of re-mineralizing enamel to a hardness value much higher than the prior art." (Appeal Br. 3, 5 Declaration of Janet Moradian-Oldak under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (July 29, 2015) ("Oldak Deel."). 7 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 5---6; see also Reply Br. 2.) Citing paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Specification, Appellants also argue that the Examiner "neglects the beneficial interaction [between] amelogenin and chitosan that is spectroscopically verified" and argue that such pH dependent interaction is advantageous to the robustness of the remineralization induced by the claimed compositions. (Appeal Br. 3--4; see also Reply Br. 2.) We are not persuaded. As the Examiner points out, Kamiya teaches remineralization by amelogenin. (Ans. 7.) Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence that, in light of the known remineralizing property of amelogenin, it is unexpected for a composition comprising amelogenin and chitosan to remineralize exposed dentinal tubules or to remineralize enamel to a high degree of hardness. 6 As an initial matter, while the Oldak Declaration states that "the present invention unexpectedly facilitate remineralization of dentin and exposed dentinal tubules" and "provide unexpected hardness approaching that of sound enamel" (Oldak Deel. 1, 2 (emphasis added)), we accord such conclusory statements little weight. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that according little weight to broad conclusory statements in expert testimony that are unsupported by corroborating references is within the discretion of the trier of fact). 6 To the extent Appellants are not arguing unexpected results but rather that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness because the combination of Kamiya and Davison does not disclose remineralizing dentin and dentin tubules (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 7), we are similarly unpersuaded because the claims do not require remineralization of dentin and dentin tubules. 8 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 Similarly, with respect to the remineralization of dentin and exposed dentinal tubules, the Oldak Declaration appears to only compare the efficacy of Leucine Rich Amelogenin Polypeptide (LRAP)-chitosan hydro gel with that of a chitosan-only control. (Oldak Deel. 1-2.) However, "when unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this case, the data presented in the Oldak Declaration and cited by Appellants does not compare the claimed composition to the composition taught by Kamiya, i.e., a composition comprising amelogenin. Appellants contend in the Appeal Brief that "[i]t is ... clear that amelogenin does not have the ability to re-mineralize dentinal tubules" and that "Appellants are not aware of any reference establishing that amelogenin can remineralize dentinal tubule." (Appeal Br. 5---6.) Appellants further contend that Kamiya's compositions are "unlikely to be capable of re- mineralizing dentinal tubules" because it does not include chitosan and thus lacks scaffold that holds amelogenin in place as well as pH dependent interactions involving chitosan. (Id.) We are not persuaded by these attorney arguments, which cannot substitute for evidence. Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As the Examiner also points out, while the Oldak Declaration only provided data for one amelogenin/chitosan composition (Leucin-rich amelogenin protein (LRAP)-chitosan hydrogel) with respect to remineralization of dentin and exposed dentinal tubules, claim 1 is not limited to LRAP-chitosan hydrogel. (Ans. 8.) Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate with the scope of the claim. In re Lindner, 9 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Appellants have not provided "an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim[, e.g., compositions comprising other amelogenins,] will behave in the same manner" as the LRAP-chitosan hydrogel tested. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Finally, the data in the Oldak Declaration regarding the allegedly unexpected hardness provided by the claimed invention suffers from similar defects in that it fails to show results that are unexpected as compared to the closest prior art, i.e., Kamiya's composition comprising amelogenin, because the comparison was to a chitosan-only control. (Oldak Deel. 2.) We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the allegedly synergistic effect of combining chitosan and amelogenin. "[I]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. 'Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice."' In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, the passages of the Specification cited by Appellants are conclusory and speculative, stating only that [t]he potential advantage of having chitosan present on the enamel surface is that the amino group of chitosan could capture the hydrogen ions from the acid, forming a positive protective layer to prevent the diffusion of hydrogen ions to the mineral surface, as well as interacting with amelogenin to avoiding amelogenin loss into the saliva. When normal pH is restored (to the range of 6.3- 7.0) by the saliva, the weakly-interacting amelogenin would be released from the chitosan to regulate the remineralization of enamel. 10 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 (Spec. ,r 54 ( emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 3--4.) Appellants point to insufficient persuasive factual evidence, however, to show that the combination of chitosan and amelogenin in fact resulted in synergistic effect. Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that such synergism exists, "[ s ]ynergism, in and of itself, is not conclusive of unobviousness in that synergism might be expected." In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 55 n.6 (CCPA 1979). Appellants have cited insufficient persuasive evidence that any alleged synergism is unexpected. For instance, both the pH buffering and film forming properties of chitosan, as well as the effect of these properties on the prevention of dental caries and/or plaque and tartar control, are known in the art. (FF9.) Claim 7 Appellants argue that claim 7 is independently patentable because claim 7 depends from claim 1 and specifically claims a composition wherein the amelogenin is a leucine rich amelogenin polypeptide (LRAP). (Appeal Br. 7.) While we agree that Appellants' data regarding allegedly unexpected results is more commensurate with the scope of claim 7, we remain unpersuaded that the subject matter of claim 7 exhibits unexpected results for the other reasons already discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 7. Claims 2-6, 8, 9 and 13-15, which are not separately argued, fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). II. Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 1-15 as obvious over Gestrelius and Davison. The Examiner finds that Gestrelius suggests each limitation of 11 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 the claims, except that Gestrelius "does not teach chitosan as a compound having a caries preventative effect." (Ans. 4--5.) The Examiner finds, however, that Davison teaches a chitosan composition having "improved effect on the inhibition of cariogenic bacteria[, which when] combined with its pH buffering capacity make the chitosan compositions very effective in prevention of dental caries." (Id. at 5 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention "to combine the chitosan of Davison with the amelogenins of Gestrelius ... since Gestrelius ... teaches combining other compounds that have caries preventive effect" and "the chitosan of Davison ... is taught to have an improved effect on the inhibition of cariogenic bacteria." (Id. at 6.) Appellants contend that the combination of Gestrelius and Davison also does not "suggest the beneficial interaction between amelogenin and chitosan or the ability of the present invention to remineralize exposed dentinal tubules." (Appeal Br. 8.) Thus, Appellants contend that the subject matter of the claims exhibits unexpected results. (Id.) Appellants further contend that a skilled artisan would not "logically combine Davison with Gestrelius to obtain a re-mineralization composition for treating dental lesions." (Id.) With respect to claim 7, Appellants also contend that the claim is independently allowable because it specifically claims a composition comprising leucine rich amelogenin polypeptide (LRAP) and chitosan. Appellants do not separately argue the claims other than claim 7. We therefore limit our analysis to claims 1 and 7. The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the 12 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 Examiner's conclusion that claims 1 and 7 are obvious over the combination of Gestrelius and Davison and, if so, whether Appellants have provided evidence of unexpected results that, when considered together with evidence of obviousness, shows claims 1 and 7 to be nonobvious. Findings of Fact 10. Gestrelius teaches "the use of an active enamel substance for the prevention of or treatment of bacterial growth on a body surface such as the skin, a mucosal surface or a nail or a tooth surface." (Gestrelius 8:38- 41; see also id. at 15:28-31 (teaching that enamel matrix, matrix derivative and/or matrix protein may be used for curative as well as preventive purposes).) 11. Gestrelius teaches that "[ t ]he enamel matrix, enamel matrix derivatives and/or enamel matrix proteins may be used for the treatment of an infection caused by bacteria together with or without the presence of an antimicrobial." (Id. at 8:45--48; see also id. at 15:31-39 (teaching that enamel matrix, matrix derivative and/or matrix protein may be used with other active drug substances such as anti-bacterial substance), 20:8-11 (teaching that "[i]n ... dental care preparations, the active enamel substance may be formulated together with one or more other compounds which have a caries preventive effect").) 12. Gestrelius teaches that, "[in] a specific embodiment of the invention, the infection is present in the oral cavity and the infection may be a bacterial condition." (Id. at 9:45--47.) Gestrelius teaches that "[o]ral bacteria to be contact inhibited or otherwise combat[ t Jed ... include bacteria causing caries, e.g., Streptococcus mutans." (Id. at 9:45-51; see also id. at 13 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 17 :3----6 ( stating that composition of its invention "may advantageously be applied to teeth or tooth roots for the prevention of caries and/or plaque").) 13. Gestrelius teaches that "[ e ]xamples of proteins for use according to the invention are amelogenins." (Id. at 11 :45--46.) 14. Gestrelius teaches that enamel matrix protein ("EMD") has a significant inhibitory effect on the adherence of S. mutans to glass surfaces, that "[a] possible explanation for this inhibition might be the presence of hydrophobic compounds in the EMD mixture," and that "[ o ]ne of the proteins abundantly present in the mixture is amelogenin, a protein that contains, besides an acidic hydrophilic C-terminal sequence, a hydrophobic core containing 100-300 residues enriched in pro line, leucine, methionine and glutamine." (Id. at 30:37--45.) 15. Gestrelius teaches that pharmaceutical composition of its invention may comprise pharmaceutically or cosmetically acceptable excipients, including solvents such as water. (Id. at 17:26-29, 18: 12-18; see also id. at 21: 3-12 ( teaching that compositions for oral use may be in a form "suitable for preparation of an aqueous suspension by addition of a liquid medium such as, e.g., an aqueous medium").) 16. Gestrelius teaches that, [i]n a toothpaste or mouthwash formulation or other formulation for application to teeth or tooth roots, the active enamel substance may either be present in a dissolved state in a vehicle of slightly acid pH or as a dispersion in a vehicle of neutral pH. It is anticipated that in use the active enamel substance may form a protective layer on the surface of the teeth, thereby preventing the attachment of caries producing bacteria. (Id. at 20: 1-8.) 14 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 17. Gestrelius teaches that "[ s Jui table compositions for use according to the invention may also be presented in the form of suspensions, emulsions or dispersions" and that suitable suspending agents include chitosans. (Id. at 20:38--40, 56-61.) Analysis We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the scope and content of the prior art as they relate to claims 1 and 7 (Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 4--10; FFl-FFl 7) and agree that claims 1 and 7 are obvious over Gestrelius and Davison. We address Appellants' arguments below. Appellants contend that the invention is nonobvious over the combination of Gestrelius and Davison "[ f]or the same reasons set forth above with respect to the combination of Kamiya and Davison," namely because the "combination does not suggest the beneficial interaction between amelogenin and chitosan or the ability of the present invention to remineralize exposed dentinal tubules." (Appeal Br. 8.) We are not persuaded for the same reasons already discussed above with respect to the rejection over Kamiya and Davison. 7 Appellants also contend that "the present invention is not directed to compositions for preventing dental caries as disclosed by Davison" and that, "[i]nstead, claims 1-15 are directed towards treating dental lesions." (Appeal Br. 8.) Appellants contend that, accordingly, a skilled artisan "would not logically combine Davison with Gestrelius to obtain a re- 7 Appellants also argue that claim 7 is independently patentable over Grestrelius and Davison because it specifically recites leucine rich amelogenin peptide (LRAP). (Appeal Br. 8-9.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the same reasons already discussed above with respect to the rejection over Kamiya and Davison. 15 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 mineralization composition for treating dental lesions since Davison does not teach that chitosan is involved in remineralization." (Id.) We are not persuaded. To the extent Appellants are contending that the claims are limited to treatment of dental lesions rather than dental caries, we note that claim 1 recites "[a] composition for treating dental caries, early dental carious and erosive lesions, and enamel defects resulting from genetic diseases." (Appeal Br., Claims App. 1 (emphasis added).) To the extent Appellants contend that there is a difference between "treating" and "preventing" dental caries, we note that Gestrelius teaches that its invention may be used for curative as well as for preventative purposes. (FFlO.) More importantly, we note that, "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. . . . [ A ]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419--20 (2007). In this case, skilled artisans would have reason to combine Gestrelius and Davison in order to prevent and/or treat dental caries, regardless of whether they would have had reason to combine the references for purposes of obtaining a remineralization composition for treating dental lesions. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 7. Claims 2-6, 8-15, which are not separately argued, fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). SUMMARY For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. 16 Appeal2017-000969 Application 14/142,086 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation