Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01272/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin W. Lang
Appellant
Gregory E. Urbanski
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: GREGORY E. URBANSKI, KEVIN W. LANG,

Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1272

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/170,614.

______________________ 

Decided: January 8, 2016

______________________ 

JONATHAN D. BALL, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by 

JENNIFER R. MOORE. 

AMY J. NELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by NATHAN K.

KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, COKE STEWART. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Gregory E. Urbanski and Kevin W. Lang (collectively, 

“Urbanski”) appeal from the decision of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (the “Board”) affirming the Examiner’s 

rejection of claims 43–50 and 52–68 of U.S. Patent AppliCase: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2016
2 IN RE URBANSKI

cation 11/170,614 (the “ ’614 application”) as unpatentable 

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).1 See Ex Parte Urbanski, 

No. 2013-002044, slip op. at 3, 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2014) 

(“Board Decision”); Joint App. (“J.A.”) 2–15. Because the 

Board did not err in concluding that the claims of the ’614 

application would have been obvious over the cited references, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In 2005, Urbanski filed the ’614 application, which is 

entitled “Protein and Fiber Hydrolysates” and is directed 

to a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber, such that

the product has a reduced water holding capacity suitable 

for use as food additives. J.A. 33. Claim 43 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:2

43. A method for making an enzymatic hydrolysate 

of a soy fiber comprising:

(a) mixing water and a soy fiber to form a 

substantially homogenous aqueous dispersion 

of hydrated unhydrolyzed soy fiber, wherein 

the unhydrolyzed soy fiber and water are present in a weight ratio of between about 1:1.5 

and about 1:8;

(b) adjusting the pH of the mixture to between about 4.5 and about 5.5;

1 Because the ’614 application was filed before the 

enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 

(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), we apply 

the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

2 Urbanski relies only on limitations in claim 43 to 

challenge the obviousness rejections and submits that all 

of the rejected claims stand or fall together. Appellants’ 

Br. 5; see also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 

1983).

 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2016
IN RE URBANSKI 3

(c) heating to at least about 200oF for a time 

sufficient to substantially swell the unhydrolyzed soy fiber;

(d) cooling the mixture to between about 

115oF and about 135oF;

(e) contacting the mixture with one or more 

endoglucanase enzymes in the absence of exohydrolytic enzymes, said one or more endoglucanase enzymes comprising an enzyme 

capable of catalyzing the hydrolysis of 1,4-β-Dglycosidic linkages in cellulose, the one or 

more endoglucanase enzymes being present in 

a weight ratio to the unhydrolyzed soy fiber of 

about 1:1,000 to about 1:25;

(f) mixing under high speed for about 60 

minutes to about 120 minutes to hydrolyze between about 0.5% and about 5% of the glycosidic bonds present in the unhydrolyzed soy 

fiber;

(g) inactivating the one or more endoglucanase enzymes; and

(h) drying the resulting enzymatic hydrolysate by spray drying;

to provide a hydrolysate of soy fiber having an 

average degree of hydrolysis of between about 

0.5% and about 5%; a water holding capacity 

which is reduced by about 10% to about 35% 

as compared to the water holding capacity of 

the unhydrolyzed soy fiber; a free simple sugar 

content of less than about 1%; and which is 

suitable for human consumption. 

Board Decision at 2 (emphases added). 

Claim 43 thus requires that the soy fiber and enzyme 

be mixed in water for 60 to 120 minutes to provide a fiber

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2016
4 IN RE URBANSKI

product having a claimed degree of hydrolysis, water 

holding capacity, and free simple sugar content. According to the ’614 application, “[t]he skilled artisan will be 

able to control the duration of the hydrolysis reaction to 

achieve any desired [degree of hydrolysis].” J.A. 47.

The Examiner rejected claims 43–50 and 52–68 under 

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over PCT Application Publication WO96/32852 of Gross et al. (“Gross”) in view of U.S. 

Patent 5,508,172 of Wong et al. (“Wong”) and other references. Board Decision at 3. Both Gross and Wong disclose methods of enzymatic hydrolysis of dietary fibers. 

Gross teaches a method that converts dietary fibers into 

“stable, homogeneous colloidal dispersions or gels,” which

uses a relatively longer hydrolysis time, e.g., 5 to 72 

hours. Gross p. 2 ll. 28–30; id. p. 7 ll. 13–15, 27–29. 

Wong’s method produces a soy fiber product of improved 

sensory properties, including smoothness and mouthfeel, 

without substantially reducing the fiber content, and uses

a shorter hydrolysis time, e.g., 100 to 240 minutes, preferably, 120 minutes, Wong, at [57]; id. col. 3 ll. 51–58. 

The Examiner found that Gross and Wong, both relating to enzymatic hydrolysis of dietary fibers, are readily 

combinable, and that “both recognize that the degree of 

hydrolysis of the fiber is a result effective variable.” J.A. 

288. The Examiner acknowledged that Gross teaches a 

longer reaction time, J.A. 288, but found that a skilled 

artisan seeking to produce soy fiber with improved palatability and high fiber content, as taught by Wong, would 

have modified the Gross process to use a shorter reaction 

time to achieve a lower degree of hydrolysis, J.A. 288, 293. 

The Examiner also found that one of ordinary skill in the 

art would have expected that modifying the Gross process 

to use a shorter reaction time would have resulted in the

claimed water holding capacity and free simple sugar 

content. J.A. 289.

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2016
IN RE URBANSKI 5

During prosecution, Gregory Urbanski submitted a 

declaration, in which he asserted that “the methods and 

products of Gross are significantly different [from] those 

claimed in the ’614 application and that Gross teaches 

away from the modification that would have been necessary to arrive at the claimed methods and products.” J.A. 

240. He presented evidence that hydrolyzed soy fiber 

prepared according to the ’614 application failed to form a 

stable, homogeneous dispersion as disclosed in Gross. 

J.A. 241–42. Urbanski thus argued that reducing the 

hydrolysis time would have rendered the fiber product 

unsatisfactory for Gross’s intended purpose of forming 

stable dispersions. J.A. 237, 329. The Examiner, 

however, found Urbanski’s argument and declaration 

unpersuasive. J.A. 254, 386–87.

Urbanski appealed to the Board, which affirmed the 

Examiner’s obviousness rejections. The Board rejected 

Urbanski’s teaching-away argument, finding that the

declaration, viewed together with Gross and Wong, at 

best shows that the benefits of the prior art processes can 

be “mutually exclusive,” viz., that the Gross process, 

which involves a longer reaction time, results in a stable 

dispersion; whereas the Wong process, which involves a 

shorter reaction time, improves the sensory properties of 

soy fiber without substantially reducing the fiber content. 

Board Decision at 5–6. In the Board’s opinion, that 

Wong’s benefit “may come at the expense of Gross’s benefit” does not outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Id. at 

5–8.

The Board also found that “both Gross and Wong 

recognize reaction time and degree of hydrolysis as resulteffective variables that can be varied in order to adjust 

the properties of the hydrolyzed fiber in a predictable 

manner.” Id. at 6. The Board observed that Urbanski 

failed to present evidence of unpredictability or identify 

anything in the prior art teaching away from the claimed 

method. Id. at 9. The Board, moreover, agreed with the 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2016
6 IN RE URBANSKI

Examiner that the claimed water holding capacity and 

free simple sugar content would have been obvious in 

view of the combined teachings of Gross and Wong. Id. at 

9–11.

Urbanski timely appealed to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, 

In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. 

NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings, In re 

Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), including 

what a reference teaches, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 

1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the existence of a reason to combine 

references, In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 

2012), and whether the prior art teaches away from the 

claimed invention, In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 

(Fed. Cir. 2012).

Urbanski argues that the Board failed to articulate a 

sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill would have 

been motivated to combine the processes of Gross and 

Wong. According to Urbanski, the declaration establishes

that modifying the Gross process by shortening the reaction time, as taught by Wong, would render the modified 

process unsatisfactory for Gross’s intended purpose, and 

thus that Gross teaches away from the modification. 

Urbanski faults the Examiner for failing to address, and 

the Board for failing to properly consider, the declaration. 

Additionally, Urbanski asserts that neither the Board nor

the Examiner established that the cited references teach 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2016
IN RE URBANSKI 7

or suggest the claimed degree of hydrolysis, water holding 

capacity, or free simple sugar content. 

The Director responds that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings that Gross and Wong 

both recognize that reaction time and degree of hydrolysis 

are result-effective variables; that varying the reaction 

time would have a predictable effect on the degree of 

hydrolysis, which in turn affect the attributes of the fiber 

product; that Gross does not teach away from a shorter 

reaction time; and that one of ordinary skill would have 

been motivated to modify the Gross process by shortening

the reaction time. The Director maintains that both the 

Board and the Examiner properly considered Urbanski’s 

declaration. The Director also responds that the claimed 

water holding capacity and free simple sugar content are 

expected properties of the product of the claimed method. 

We agree with the Director that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that one of ordinary skill in 

the art would have been motivated to modify the Gross 

process in view of Wong to use a shorter reaction time,

and that the claimed degree of hydrolysis, water holding 

capacity, and free simple sugar content would be expected 

properties of the hydrolysis product. 

Both Gross and Wong relate to enzymatic hydrolysis 

of dietary fibers. Gross teaches a longer reaction time,

whereas Wong teaches a shorter reaction time that overlaps with, or falls within, Urbanski’s claimed range. 

Wong also teaches that its method produces soy fiber with 

improved sensory properties without substantially reducing the fiber content. It is undisputed that the properties 

disclosed in Wong would be favorable properties of dietary 

fibers. Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s 

finding that a person of ordinary skill would have been 

motivated to modify the Gross process by using a shorter 

reaction time, in order to obtain the favorable properties

disclosed in Wong.

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2016
8 IN RE URBANSKI

Additionally, the Board properly found that both 

Gross and Wong recognize that reaction time and degree 

of hydrolysis are result-effective variables that can be 

varied in order to adjust the properties of the hydrolyzed 

fiber in a predictable manner. See In re Applied 

Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A 

recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by 

the variable is sufficient to find the variable resulteffective.”). The degree of hydrolysis is dependent on the 

reaction time because the longer the fiber is in contact 

with the enzyme, the greater the extent of hydrolysis. 

The degree of hydrolysis in turn affects the attributes of 

the resulting fiber product. Wong suggests that a shorter 

reaction time and a lower degree of hydrolysis improves 

soy fiber’s sensory properties without substantially reducing the fiber content; whereas Gross suggests that a 

longer reaction time and a higher degree of hydrolysis 

results in fibers capable of forming a stable dispersion. 

Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s finding 

that a person of ordinary skill would have expected that, 

by adjusting the reaction time, the degree of hydrolysis 

and the properties of the fiber would be altered.

As the Board observed, Gross teaches that hydrolyzed

fiber absorbs less water as compared with unhydrolyzed 

fiber and discloses one example in which the water holding capacity was reduced by 40% after hydrolysis. Board 

Decision at 9. One of ordinary skill thus would have 

expected that modifying the Gross process by shortening 

the reaction time would have resulted in a lesser change

in water holding capacity. Likewise, substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that shortening the reaction 

time and lowering the degree of hydrolysis would result in 

a lower free simple sugar content. We therefore agree 

with the Director that the PTO established a prima facie 

case of obviousness.

That prima facie case has not been rebutted. There is 

no evidence, and Urbanski does not suggest, that the 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2016
IN RE URBANSKI 9

claimed ranges of degree of hydrolysis, water holding 

capacity, and free simple sugar content are “critical” or 

“produce a new and unexpected result” as compared to the 

prior art. Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1297. There is 

also no evidence that the “variables interacted in an 

unpredictable or unexpected way,” which could render the 

claims nonobvious. Id. at 1298 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. 

Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).

Moreover, we agree with the Director that both the 

Examiner and the Board properly considered and weighed 

Urbanski’s declaration. We are unpersuaded by Urbanski’s argument that, because modifying the Gross process 

by shortening the hydrolysis time, as taught by Wong,

would have rendered the modified process inoperable for 

Gross’s intended purpose, viz., forming stable dispersions, 

Gross teaches away from the claimed method of making a 

hydrolysate of a soy fiber. 

In cases involving mechanical device or apparatus 

claims, we have held that “[i]f references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . 

such references teach away from the combination and 

thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of 

obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 

1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Sponnoble, 405 

F.2d 578, 587 (CCPA 1969); see also In re Gordon, 733 

F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). But in this case, Urbanski’s reliance on Gordon and its progeny is misplaced.

As indicated, the Board correctly found that Gross 

and Wong are combinable, as both references concern the 

enzymatic hydrolysis of dietary fibers and recognize that 

reaction time and degree of hydrolysis can be varied in 

order to adjust the fiber’s properties. Although Gross 

teaches the benefit of stable dispersions, Wong teaches 

other desirable properties, viz., improved sensory properties without substantially reducing the fiber content. On 

this record, the Board properly found that one of ordinary 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2016
10 IN RE URBANSKI

skill would have been motivated to pursue the desirable 

properties taught by Wong, even at the expense of foregoing the benefit taught by Gross.

This case is therefore distinguishable from Gordon, 

which Urbanski relies on. In Gordon, the Board affirmed 

the Examiner’s rejection of a claim directed to a blood 

filter with an inlet and outlet on the bottom over the prior 

art, French, which taught a gasoline filter with the inlet 

and outlet on the top. 733 F.2d at 901. The Board reasoned that “it would have been obvious to turn the French 

device upside down to have both the inlet and outlet at 

the bottom, rather than at the top.” Id. at 902. This court

reversed, noting that French teaches a liquid strainer 

which relied, at least in part, upon the assistance of 

gravity to separate undesired particles from gasoline. We 

reasoned: 

Therefore, it is not seen that French would have 

provided any motivation to one of ordinary skill in 

the art to employ the French apparatus in an upside down orientation. The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made 

the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. . . . Indeed, if the French apparatus were turned upside 

down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose. . . . In effect, French teaches away

from the board’s proposed modification. 

Id. (emphases added).

Here, the cited references do not teach away from the 

claimed method. The obviousness rejections are based on 

Gross in view of Wong. As indicated earlier, Wong teaches that its method produces soy fiber with improved 

sensory properties without substantially reducing the 

fiber content. Wong thus provides the motivation to 

modify the Gross process and suggests the desirability of 

such modification. Moreover, both Gross and Wong 

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2016
IN RE URBANSKI 11

suggest that hydrolysis time may be adjusted to achieve 

different fiber properties. Nothing in the prior art teaches 

that the proposed modification would have resulted in an 

“inoperable” process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties. As the Board properly found, one of 

ordinary skill would have been motivated to pursue the 

desirable properties taught by Wong, even if that meant

foregoing the benefit taught by Gross. And Urbanski’s 

claims do not require Gross’s benefit that is arguably lost 

by combination with Wong. The Board therefore did not 

err in rejecting Urbanski’s inoperability argument. 

Substantial evidence, moreover, supports the Board’s 

finding that Gross does not otherwise teach away from 

the claimed method. “A reference may be said to teach 

away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the 

reference, would be discouraged from following the path 

set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction 

divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” 

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although 

Gross generally discloses a relatively longer reaction time

that results in fiber capable of forming stable dispersions, 

Gross does not criticize or discredit the use of a shorter 

reaction time. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board 

did not err in affirming the Examiner’s decision that 

claims 43–50 and 52–68 of the ’614 application would 

have been obvious over the cited references. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Urbanski’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

we conclude that claims 43–50 and 52–68 of the ’614 

application would have been obvious in view of the prior 

art, and therefore affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1272 Document: 37-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2016