Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1756

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

-- 1 of 10 --

IN RE: MAZED 2
(“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 co-
stimulating 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

-- 2 of 10 --

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

-- 3 of 10 --

IN RE: MAZED 4
“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

-- 4 of 10 --

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

-- 5 of 10 --

IN RE: MAZED 6
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

-- 6 of 10 --

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 naturally-
occurring 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

-- 7 of 10 --

IN RE: MAZED 8
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

-- 8 of 10 --

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

-- 9 of 10 --

IN RE: MAZED 10
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

-- 10 of 10 --