Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01756/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammad A. Mazed
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

IN RE: MOHAMMAD A. MAZED,

Appellant

______________________

2024-1756

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/602,403.

______________________

Decided: January 10, 2025

______________________

MOHAMMAD A. MAZED, Yorba Linda, CA, pro se. 

 SHEHLA WYNNE, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee 

Derrick Brent. Also represented by AMY J. NELSON,

MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Mohammad A. Mazed appeals from the decision of the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“the Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejections of 

claims 85 and 87 of U.S. Patent Application 16/602,403 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2025
2 IN RE: MAZED

(“the ’403 application”)1 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103. In re Mazed, No. 2024-000723, 2024 WL 3200453 

(P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

I

On September 28, 2019, Mazed filed a patent 

application entitled “Molecular System for Cancer Biology” 

directed to engineered dendritic cells for use in cancer 

immunotherapy. J.A. 29, 85. The ’403 application explains 

that the claimed invention can be used “for enhanced 

interaction with a T-cell and/or a natural killer cell against 

a particular type of cancer cells.” See ’403 application at 

Abstract, J.A. 85. For example, in one embodiment, the 

’403 application describes that the engineered dendritic 

cells “can train other types of immune cells (especially the 

T-cells and/or natural killer cells) to recognize and destroy 

existing cancer cells in the human body.” Id. at ¶ 224, 

J.A. 69. The engineered dendritic cells can include DNA, 

RNA, and XNA origami nanostructures to enhance cell-cell 

interactions. Id. at ¶ 225, J.A. 69–70.

Independent claim 85 of the ’403 application recites:

85. An engineered dendritic cell comprising:

(a) a first bioactive molecule;

wherein the first bioactive molecule is 

selected from a group consisting of a costimulating molecule, a mobility enhancing 

molecule, and a programming molecule,

1 The ’403 application was published on April 23, 

2020, as U.S. Patent Application Publication 

2020/0123575.

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2025
IN RE: MAZED 3

(b) a second bioactive molecule to 

activate (i) a T-cell, and/or (ii) a natural 

killer cell;

(c) an identifying protein on a cancer cell; 

and

(d) a first scaffold of a biocompatible 

polymer for interaction with the T-cell, 

and/or the natural killer cell against the 

cancer cell,

wherein the first scaffold comprises

a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) based 

origami,

or

a ribonucleic acid (RNA) based origami,

or

a XNA based origami

wherein XNA comprises genetic bases of 

adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), 

cytosine (C), and uracil (U), wherein XNA 

further comprises one or more synthetic or 

artificial genetic bases,

wherein the first bioactive molecule, the 

second bioactive molecule, the identifying 

protein, and the first scaffold are coupled.

Decision at *1; see also J.A. 360–61. Claim 87 depends 

from claim 85 and recites that the engineered dendritic cell 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2025
4 IN RE: MAZED

“further compris[es] a protein to detect a molecular event 

within the cancer cell.” Decision at *1; see also J.A. 361.2

II

The Examiner rejected claims 85 and 87 as obvious 

over the combination of Chang 2011,3 Chang 2020,4 and 

Ma.5 Decision at *1.

Chang 2011 discloses an antigen presenting cell 

(“APC”) comprising nucleic acid nanostructures that 

promote cell-cell interactions, which can be used to treat 

mammalian tumors. See J.A. 521, Abstract. Specifically, it 

discloses “compositions comprising a first ligand that is 

capable of binding to a receptor of a first cell type, a second 

ligand that is capable of binding to a receptor of a second 

cell type, wherein the first ligand and the second ligand are 

bound to a nucleic acid nanostructure.” J.A. 539, ¶ 8. As 

Chang 2011 describes, a nucleic acid nanostructure “refers 

to a nucleic acid structure that includes at least one 

nanoscale dimension, wherein the nucleic acid structure 

comprises one or more single stranded nucleic acids, which 

hybridize to form at least a partially double-stranded 

structure with defined features and geometry.” J.A. 544, 

¶ 65. The nucleic acid nanostructure can include a DNA 

origami, and the term “nucleic acid” includes DNA, RNA, 

2 On appeal, Mazed does not independently 

challenge the Board’s decision with respect to claim 87. See

Mazed Br. 43. We therefore do not separately address this 

claim.

3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0275702, 

J.A. 521–62.

4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0385734, 

J.A. 563–663.

5 Daphne Y. Ma & Edward A. Clark, The role of CD40 

and CD154/CD40L in dendritic cells, 21 SEMINARS IN 

IMMUNOLOGY 265 (2009), J.A. 664–73.

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 01/10/2025
IN RE: MAZED 5

and “analogues thereof.” Id. ¶¶ 66–67. Chang 2011 further 

explains that T-cells and natural killer cells are “major 

players in tumor immunity,” J.A. 539, ¶ 6, and that its 

invention aims to “augment[] tumor immunity by 

promoting cell-cell interaction,” id. ¶ 7.

Chang 2020 discloses RNA nanostructures for use in 

treating patients with cancer. J.A. 589, ¶ 3. Its 

nanostructures have the sequence: (R3)n-NR1-L-NR2-(R4)m

where NR1 and NR2 can represent RNA nanostructures, R3

and R4 can represent RNA targeting strands which can be 

operably linked to a targeting moiety (e.g., a protein or 

peptide) that binds to a target, and L represents a linker. 

J.A. 589, ¶¶ 10–14; J.A. 591, ¶ 31. In some embodiments, 

one or more of R3 and R4 is a protein, such as a “tumor 

targeting peptide (TTP), a human cancer peptide, or 

calreticulin protein.” J.A. 592, ¶ 41.

Ma describes the role of CD40–CD154 in dendritic 

cells. As Ma explains, CD40 is a “transmembrane 

glycoprotein surface receptor that is a member of the tumor 

necrosis factor receptor superfamily,” and CD154 is its 

ligand. J.A. 664.

III

On appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 85 

and 87 over those references, the Board affirmed. In doing 

so, the Board accepted the Examiner’s interpretation of 

various claim terms, including “engineered,” “coupled,” and 

“biocompatible polymer.” Decision at *2–3. Agreeing with 

the Examiner, the Board determined that, in the absence 

of a definition within the specification, the term 

“engineered” encompasses cells that have been modified in 

a lab for a certain task, such that an “engineered dendritic 

cell” means a “cell that has been man made in order to 

induce an interaction with another cell.” See id. at *2 

(cleaned up). The Board further agreed with the Examiner 

that the term “coupled” does not require any of the claimed 

components (i.e., the first bioactive molecule, the second 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 01/10/2025
6 IN RE: MAZED

bioactive molecule, the identifying protein, and the first 

scaffold) to be arranged in any specific arrangement or to 

have a “direct protein-protein interaction.” See id. at *3. 

Therefore, the Board accepted the Examiner’s 

interpretation that the claim term “mean[s] that the 

dendritic cell itself is the structure that couples” those 

components. Id. (cleaned up). Finally, the Board agreed 

with the Examiner that, in the absence of a definition in 

the specification for “biocompatible polymer,” that term 

encompasses strands of XNA. Id.

Based on those interpretations, the Board affirmed the 

rejection of claim 85, finding no error in the Examiner’s 

conclusion that:

the combination of Chang 2011, Chang 2020, and 

Ma makes obvious an engineered [dendritic cell] 

that expresses a first bioactive molecule, 

CD40/CD40L, that is a programming molecule, a 

second bioactive molecule, MHC [i.e., major 

histocompatibility complex, a bioactive molecule], 

that activates a T cell, and further comprises an 

XNA origami biocompatible polymer scaffold that 

comprises an identifying protein on a cancer cell, 

e.g., NY-ESO-1, wherein the first bioactive 

molecule, the second bioactive molecule, XNA 

origami, and identifying protein are all coupled via 

the engineered [dendritic cell].

Id. at *7. The Board did not find persuasive Mazed’s 

arguments that CD40 is not a “programming molecule,” as 

recited in the claim, concluding that that argument did not 

address the teachings of Ma. Id.

Mazed timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mazed raises two primary challenges to the 

Board’s decision. First, he argues that the Board’s 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 01/10/2025
IN RE: MAZED 7

interpretation of the claim terms “engineered dendritic 

cell,” “coupled,” and “biocompatible polymer” were 

erroneous. Second, he argues that the Board’s factual 

findings underlying its obviousness analysis were not 

supported by substantial evidence. We address each 

argument in turn.

I

“Claims in pending applications receive their broadest 

reasonable interpretation during examination.” In re 

Fought, 941 F.3d 1175, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Under that 

standard, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary 

meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the 

art, unless that meaning is inconsistent with the 

specification. See In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). We review the Board’s claim construction de novo

and its underlying factual findings involving extrinsic 

evidence for substantial evidence. In re Man Mach. 

Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Beginning with “engineered dendritic cell,” Mazed 

argues that that term is limited to a “lab-made dendritic 

cell with all added synthetic biocomponents.” Mazed Br. 

13; id. at 16 (“Engineered dendritic cell requires consistent 

addition of synthetic molecules, but cannot rely on 

occasionally naturally expressed biomolecules[.]”). That is, 

Mazed argues that the claimed invention does not include 

engineered dendritic cells that incorporate naturallyoccurring bioactive molecules. We disagree. As the Board 

observed, the ’403 application does not define the term 

“engineered,” and nothing in the specification or claim 

language supports interpreting that language to including 

only synthetic biocomponents. Decision at *3. For 

example, the claims merely require the first bioactive 

molecule to be selected from a “co-stimulating molecule, a 

mobility enhancing molecule, and a programming 

molecule,” and the second bioactive molecule to be able to 

activate a T-cell or natural killer cell. Neither of those 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 7 Filed: 01/10/2025
8 IN RE: MAZED

requirements limits the bioactive molecules to synthetic 

biocomponents. Moreover, Mazed does not point to any 

disclosure in the specification or claim language that 

supports his view. See Mazed Br. 13. The Board therefore 

did not err in interpreting “engineered dendritic cell” to 

mean a “cell has been man made in order to induce an 

interaction with another cell.” Decision at *2.

As for the term “coupled,” Mazed does not appear to 

directly dispute the Board’s interpretation of that term as 

not requiring any of the claimed components to be arranged 

in any specific arrangement. However, he does attempt to 

distinguish Chang 2020 by arguing that the reference 

“clear[ly] discourage[s]” binding an identifying protein 

“directly onto an engineered dendritic cell,” as he purports 

is claimed. Mazed Br. 19. However, as the Board correctly 

found, nothing in the claim language or specification 

requires the identifying protein to be bound directly to the 

dendritic cell. And Mazed again fails to point to any 

disclosure to show otherwise. See id.

Finally, with respect to the claimed “biocompatible 

polymer,” Mazed argues that a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would have understood that term to mean “(i) a 

polylactic-co-glycolic acid or (ii) polyLactic Acid.” Mazed 

Br. 21. That is, Mazed argues that the Board’s 

interpretation that the claimed “biocompatible polymer” 

can include polymers of nucleic acids, such as DNA, RNA, 

or XNA, was error. In his view, under the Board’s 

interpretation, the claimed biocompatible polymer is a 

“missing element” from the prior art because the “scaffold 

made of a biocompatible polymer is distinct from a DNA 

scaffold.” Id. at 23–24. Again, we disagree. The claim 

recites “a first scaffold of a biocompatible polymer 

. . . wherein the first scaffold comprises a [DNA] based 

origami, or a [RNA] based origami, or a XNA based 

origami.” J.A. 361. Contrary to Mazed’s argument, the 

plain language of the claim does not require the “first 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 8 Filed: 01/10/2025
IN RE: MAZED 9

scaffold of a biocompatible polymer” to be distinct from the 

claimed DNA, RNA, or XNA origami. See Decision at *10.

For those reasons, we see no error in the Board’s 

interpretation of the claim terms.

II

Mazed’s remaining arguments purport to challenge the 

sufficiency of the Board’s obviousness analysis. We review 

the Board’s obviousness analysis de novo and its 

underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. In re 

Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023). 

On appeal, Mazed argues that the Board “never 

explained” why the claimed engineered dendritic cell 

“would have been an obvious choice.” Mazed Br. 33. In 

Mazed’s view, there was an insufficient motivation to 

combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention 

with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 34–37. We 

disagree and find that substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would have been motivated to combine the prior art to 

arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable 

expectation of success.

As the Board explained, a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would have been motivated “to prepare the 

engineered APC comprising the origami nanostructure for 

interacting with a T cell as taught by Chang (2011), and 

choose a dendritic cell as the APC comprising an origami 

nanostructure for binding a synthetic peptide tumor 

antigen as taught by Chang (2020) with a reasonable 

expectation of success.” Decision at *6. That is because 

both references—having the same author—are directed to 

use of engineered nanostructures in cancer 

immunotherapy, and the dendritic cells of Chang 2020 are 

a subtype of the APCs taught by Chang 2011. Id. at *6–7. 

The Board further explained that a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would have looked to Ma as teaching that the 

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 9 Filed: 01/10/2025
10 IN RE: MAZED

first bioactive molecule, CD40/CD40L, is a programming 

molecule, as required by the claim. See id. at *7–8. The

Board further detailed how those references, in 

combination, would have rendered obvious each and every 

limitation of the claimed invention. See generally id. at *6–

13. Substantial evidence therefore supports the Board’s

obviousness analysis.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mazed’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the reasons provided, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 24-1756 Document: 27 Page: 10 Filed: 01/10/2025