PTAB

IPR2013-00124

Intl Flavors & Fragrances Inc v. US Department Of Agriculture

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Repelling Arthropods Using Isolongifolenone Analogs
  • Brief Description: The ’016 patent discloses methods for repelling various arthropods, including mosquitoes and ticks, by treating an object or area with a composition containing an arthropod-repelling effective amount of at least one isolongifolenone analog.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 14, 19-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Behan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Behan (International Publication No. WO 2000/019822).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Behan discloses every element of the challenged claims. Behan teaches a method for repelling insects from an object or airspace by applying an effective amount of at least one perfume ingredient. Critically, Behan explicitly identifies "2,2,7,7-tetramethyltricyclo[6.2.1.0¹,⁶]undecan-5-one [Isolongifolanone]" as an insect repellent, which is one of the specific isolongifolenone analogs encompassed by claim 1 of the ’016 patent and specified in dependent claims 4, 5, and 14. Behan also discloses using carriers and applying the repellent against arthropods including members of the genus Aedes, thus anticipating claims 19-21 and 23.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 14-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Behan in view of Grieco

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Behan (WO 2000/019822) and Grieco (a 2005 journal article titled "A Novel High-Throughput Screening System to Evaluate the Behavioral Response of Adult Mosquitoes to Chemicals").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Behan discloses the foundational method of using isolongifolanone as a repellent. The challenged dependent claims 15-18 further recite specific concentration ranges for the repellent (e.g., "about 10 to about 300 nmol/cm²"). Grieco, while analyzing different repellents, teaches that it is routine to test and optimize repellent concentrations, demonstrating effective spatial repellency at concentrations of 25 and 250 nmol/cm². These disclosed concentrations fall squarely within the ranges claimed in the ’016 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), starting with the known repellent compound from Behan, would be motivated to determine its optimal effective concentration. Grieco provided a known framework and demonstrated that testing concentrations such as 25 and 250 nmol/cm² was a routine and conventional step in evaluating insect repellents.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that discovering optimal or workable concentration ranges for known active compounds was a standard practice in the art, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the routine optimization taught by Grieco to the isolongifolanone compound disclosed in Behan to arrive at the claimed ranges.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 14, and 19-26 under §103 over Behan in view of Carroll

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Behan (WO 2000/019822) and Carroll (a 2005 journal article titled "Repellency of Deet and SS220 Applied to Skin Involves Olfactory Sensing by Two Species of Ticks").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Behan teaches using isolongifolanone to repel arthropods, specifically mentioning members of the genus Aedes. The challenged dependent claims 19-26 extend the method to a list of specific arthropods, including Anopheles stephensi, Ixodes scapularis, and Amblyomma americanum (claims 22, 24-26). Carroll teaches that a repellent (SS220) known to be effective against Aedes aegypti also effectively repels these same additional species.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, knowing from Behan that isolongifolanone is effective against Aedes mosquitoes, would be motivated to determine its efficacy against other common and medically significant arthropods. Carroll confirmed the well-understood principle that many repellents exhibit broad-spectrum activity, providing the rationale to test a known repellent against a wider array of species.
    • Expectation of Success: Based on Carroll's demonstration that a repellent effective against Aedes aegypti could also repel other mosquitoes and ticks, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success that Behan’s isolongifolanone would likewise be effective against the specific species recited in claims 22 and 24-26.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 14-26 of Patent 7,579,016 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.