{"content":[{"text":"PGR2021-00006 \n U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659","bbox":{"left":0.630581,"top":0.046173,"width":0.251903,"height":0.039929}},{"text":"TABLE OF CONTENTS","bbox":{"left":0.376667,"top":0.107082,"width":0.24690900000000005,"height":0.019631999999999997}},{"text":"I. \n II.","bbox":{"left":0.117638,"top":0.145107,"width":0.021023,"height":0.048879000000000006}},{"text":"Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 \n State of the Art ................................................................................................ 4 \n A. Alopecia Areata .................................................................................... 4 \n B. Ruxolitinib and Janus Kinase Inhibitors .............................................. 5 \n C. Deuteration ........................................................................................... 7 \n The ʼ659 Patent ............................................................................................... 7 \n A. The Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 9 \n B. Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History .................................. 10 \n Person of Ordinary Skill and Claim Construction ........................................ 12 \n Grounds 1 and 2 Should Be Denied Because Incyte Has Failed to \n Show that Silverman is Prior Art Under AIA § 102 .................................... 12 \n A. Incyte’s Deliberate Failure to Even Discuss Silverman’s Prior- \n Art Status Is Fatal to the Petition ....................................................... 13 \n B. Silverman Is Not Prior Art Under AIA § 102 .................................... 15 \n 1. Silverman Is Not Prior Art Under Subsection (a)(1) \n Because It Satisfies the Inventor-Disclosure Exceptions \n in § 102(b)(1)(A) and (B) ........................................................ 16 \n 2. Silverman Is Not Prior Art Under Subsection (a)(2) \n Because It Falls Under the Common-Ownership \n Exception of Subsection (b)(2)(C) ........................................... 21 \n Grounds 1 and 2 Should Be Denied Pursuant to § 325(d) Because the \n Examiner Considered Substantially the Same Prior Art .............................. 22 \n A. The Asserted Art Is Either Identical to or Materially \n Indistinguishable from the Prior Art Before the Examiner ................ 23 \n 1. Silverman, Xing, and Christiano Were Before the \n Examiner .................................................................................. 24 \n 2. The Version of the Ruxolitinib Prescribing Information \n Before the Examiner Is Not Materially Different from the \n Version Cited in the Petition .................................................... 25","bbox":{"left":0.176459,"top":0.145107,"width":0.700131,"height":0.73902}},{"text":"III.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.291021,"width":0.028654000000000013,"height":0.019631999999999983}},{"text":"IV. \n V.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.378445,"width":0.030041000000000012,"height":0.048875}},{"text":"VI.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.675415,"width":0.030041000000000012,"height":0.019631999999999983}},{"text":"i","bbox":{"left":0.49688,"top":0.934947,"width":0.006373999999999991,"height":0.019631999999999983}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}