Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01145/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilbert C. Gee
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: GILBERT C. GEE,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1145

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 10/602,404.

______________________ 

Decided: June 8, 2015

______________________ 

DAVID E. BENNETT, Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, 

NC, for appellant.

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee. Also represented by SARAH EMILY CRAVEN, AMY 

J. NELSON.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, PLAGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Gilbert C. Gee (“Gee”) appeals from the decision of the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), affirming the 

Examiner’s decision to reject claims 38, 39, and 41–43 of 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2015
2 IN RE: GEE

Gee’s U.S. Patent Application 10/602,404 (the “’404 application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006) and claims 38 

and 41–43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (2006). See Ex Parte 

Gee, No. 2012-001041, 2014 WL 1446589 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 

11, 2014) (“Board Decision”), aff’d on reh’g, 2014 WL 

3840551 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014) (“Rehearing Decision”). 

Because the Board did not err in concluding that the 

claims of the ’404 application would have been obvious, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Gee owns the ’404 application, which is directed to a

method of treating a viral infection, such as one caused by 

the Herpes Simplex Virus (“herpes”), with a mixture of 

coffee grounds and honey. According to the application, 

“[i]t is suspected that the combination of a bee product 

and caffeine produces . . . a synergistic effect that inhibits 

replication of the virus more so than would treatment 

with either caffeine or bee product alone.” J.A. 32. Independent claim 38, which is representative of the claims on 

appeal, reads as follows:

38. A method for the treatment of a viral infection 

comprising:

a) forming a mixture of coffee grounds and honey; 

and

b) treating a virus that causes the viral infection 

with said coffee grounds-honey mixture.

J.A. 309. 

The PTO Examiner rejected claims 38, 39, and 41–43

under § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent 

5,382,436 (“Potts”) in view of: (1) Linda White & Steven 

Foster, The Herbal Drugstore: The Best Natural Alternatives to Over-the-Counter Prescription Medicines! (2000) 

(“White”); (2) U.S. Patent 6,953,574 (“Sobol”); (3) U.S. 

Patent 5,952,373 (“Lanzendörfer”); and (4) U.S. Patent 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2015
IN RE: GEE 3

Application 2003/0086986 (“Bruijn”). The Examiner also 

rejected claims 38 and 41–43 under § 112 ¶ 2. 

Gee appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 38, 39, and 41–43

based on Potts in view of White, Sobol, Lanzendörfer, and 

Bruijn. Board Decision at *4. The Board found that it 

would have been obvious to combine coffee grounds and 

honey, each known to treat herpes, to form a third composition also used for the treatment of herpes. Id. at *3. 

The Board also affirmed the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 38 and 41–43. Id. at *2. The 

Board found the claimed “treating” step in claim 38 to be

ambiguous because of the difference between Gee’s interpretation that one skilled in the art would inherently 

know to apply the mixture topically and the Examiner’s 

interpretation based on the specification that the claims 

could include orally consuming the mixture. Id. The 

Board concluded that any ambiguity should be removed 

from claim 38 by clarifying that the treatment is intended 

to be a topical application. Id.

Gee requested rehearing, but the Board “adhere[d] to 

the original Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections.” 

Rehearing Decision at *1. In response to Gee’s argument 

that the Board incorrectly applied an obvious-to-try 

rationale in the obviousness rejection, the Board found 

that Gee had presented insufficient evidence to establish 

that the claimed combination of coffee grounds and honey

produced any unexpected results. Id. at *3. The Board 

reasoned that the specification’s assertion of a possible 

synergistic effect, without supporting evidence, failed to 

overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Id.

The Board also maintained the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection, finding the claims to be vague as to the 

scope of “treating.” Id. at *1. The Board reaffirmed the 

ambiguity between topical and oral administration, 

explaining that “the ambiguity is whether the virus itself 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2015
4 IN RE: GEE

is being treated, or whether it is the infection caused by 

the virus (in the form of sores) that is being treated.” Id. 

The Board concluded that “[w]hichever interpretation 

[Gee] has settled on can be incorporated into the claim 

language, thereby removing any ambiguity as to what is 

required by ‘treating a virus.’” Id. at *2. 

Gee 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 several underlying factual findings, 

In re Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, Rapoport v. Dement, 254 

F.3d 1053, 1060–61 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Gee argues that the Board erred because, although 

the prior art discloses the use of coffee grounds and honey 

individually to treat a virus, none of the prior art discloses 

the use of a combination of coffee grounds and honey to 

treat a virus. Gee further contends that the Board’s sole 

reason for combining coffee grounds and honey was that 

both have been used in the past to treat viral infections; 

Gee argues, however, that the Board’s reasoning is insufficient where, as here, the universe of possible combinations is large and there is no indication in the prior art as 

to which of the possible combinations are likely to be 

successful.

The Director responds that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that it would have been obvious 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/08/2015
IN RE: GEE 5

to combine coffee grounds and honey to treat a virus 

based on the combined teachings of Potts, White, and 

Sobol—which collectively teach the individual uses of 

caffeine from coffee grounds and honey to treat viral 

infections—and achieve the same result achieved by 

either product alone. To the extent the Board applied an 

obvious-to-try rationale, the Director argues that the 

Board correctly found that Gee’s claimed invention would 

have been obvious to try because the specification’s assertion of a synergism for the combination of honey and 

caffeine provided insufficient evidence of unexpected 

results.

We agree with the Director that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that claims 38, 39, and 41–43

would have been obvious based on Potts in view of White, 

Sobol, Lanzendörfer, and Bruijn. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same 

function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more 

than one would expect from such an arrangement, the 

combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 

U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 

425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Gee does not dispute that the 

prior art teaches the individual use of coffee grounds and 

honey to treat viral infections. Indeed, as the Board 

found: (1) Potts teaches the use of a beeswax-based formulation with caffeine to prevent herpes cold sores, Board 

Decision at *2; (2) White recommends the use of coffee 

grounds to treat herpes-associated sores because the 

caffeine in coffee inhibits herpes, id.; and (3) Sobol teaches 

that compositions containing a variety of ingredients, 

including honey, have a broad spectrum of therapeutic 

activity, including activity against viruses such as herpes, 

id. at *3.

It would thus have been obvious to combine coffee 

grounds and honey, each of which is taught by the prior 

art to be useful for treating viral infections, to create a 

third composition which is also useful for treating viral 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/08/2015
6 IN RE: GEE

infections. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 

1980) (citations omitted). The use of the combination of 

coffee grounds and honey to treat viral infections is nothing “more than the predictable use of prior art elements 

according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. 

at 417. 

The Board also correctly relied on the obvious-to-try 

rationale because Gee failed to provide evidence that the 

combination of coffee grounds and honey in a single 

composition yields a composition with unexpected results. 

See In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 276 (CCPA 1960) (The 

“joint use [of magnesium oxide and calcium carbide] is not 

patentable” where the prior art teaches “that both magnesium oxide and calcium carbide, individually, promote the 

formation of a nodular structure in cast iron, and it would 

be natural to suppose that, in combination, they would 

produce the same effect and would supplement each 

other.”). As Gee acknowledges, coffee grounds and honey 

have each proven to be individually successful in treating 

viral infections. The specification of the ’404 application 

states that “[i]t is suspected that the combination of a bee 

product and caffeine produces . . . a synergistic effect.” 

J.A. 32. But unsupported statements in the specification 

will not support a finding of unexpected results. In re De 

Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Gee has thus 

failed to identify evidence showing that the combination 

of coffee grounds and honey in a single composition provides unexpected results. As a result, we conclude that 

the Board did not err in affirming the Examiner’s decision 

that claims 38, 39, and 41–43 would have been obvious 

over Potts in view of White, Sobol, Lanzendörfer, and 

Bruijn.

Because we conclude that the Board did not err in affirming the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 38, 39, and 

41–43 would have been obvious, we do not need to reach 

the rejection of claims 38 and 41–43 under § 112 ¶ 2. 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/08/2015
IN RE: GEE 7

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

conclude that claims 38, 39, and 41–43 of the ’404 application would have been obvious in view of the prior art and 

therefore affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1145 Document: 42-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/08/2015