throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Date: August 24, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NANOCELLECT BIOMEDICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CYTONOME/ST, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`On February 10, 2020, NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 18–24 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,877,528 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’528 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). On June
`1, 2020, Cytonome/ST, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With authorization, on June 19, 2020, Petitioner
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 9, “Prelim. Reply”) and on June 26, 2020,
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 10, “Prelim. Sur-
`Reply”). Also with authorization, on July 17, 2020, Petitioner filed
`Preliminary Supplemental Briefing (Paper 14, “Prelim. Supp. Br.”) and on
`July 22, 2202, Patent Owner to filed a Response to Petitioner’s Preliminary
`Supplemental Briefing (Paper 15, “Prelim. Supp. Resp.”).
`Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, for the
`reasons explained below, we deny institution of inter partes review.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner indicates that it is the real-party-in-interest. Pet. 2. Patent
`Owner indicates that it and Inguran, LLC are the real-parties-in-interest.
`Paper 4, 2.
`C. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters related to the ’528 patent:
`Cytonome/ST, LLC v. NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-
`00301-UNA (D. Del.) (the “parallel proceeding);
`Inter partes review of US 8,623,295 B2 (IPR2020-00548);
`Inter partes review of US 9,011,797 B2 (IPR2020-00550);
`Inter partes review of US 9,339,850 B2 (IPR2020-00546);
`Inter partes review of US 10,029,263 B2 (IPR2020-00549)
`Inter partes review of US 10,029,283 B2 (IPR2020-00547); and
`Inter partes review of US 10,065,188 B2 (IPR2020-00551).
`Pet. 3, Paper 4, 1–2.
`D. The ’528 Patent
`The ’528 patent “relates to microscale fluid handling devices and
`systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method and
`system for controlling liquid flow in a microchannel by the introduction of a
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`gas bubble to a microfluidic system.” Ex. 1001, 1:16–21. Figure 16,
`reproduced below, shows the sorting apparatus.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic view of “a particle sorting system that
`implements a bubble valve . . . to produce fluid impulses to sort particles.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:43–45. As shown in Figure 16, “particle sorter 160 comprises a
`closed channel system of capillary size for sorting particles, such as cells”
`including “first supply duct 162 for introducing a stream of particles and []
`second supply duct 164 for supplying a carrier liquid.” Id. at 11:51–55.
`“[F]irst supply duct 162 ends in a nozzle, and a stream of particles is
`introduced into the flow of carrier liquid.” Id. at 11:55–57. “[F]irst supply
`duct 162 and the second supply duct 164 enter a measurement duct 166,
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`which branches into a first branch 172a and a second branch 172b at a
`branch point 171.” Id. at 11:57–60. “[M]easurement region 182a is defined
`in the measurement duct 166 and is associated with a detector 182b to sense
`a predetermined characteristic of particles in the measurement region 182a.”
`Id. at 11:60–63. “Two opposed bubble valves 10a and 10b are positioned in
`communication with the measurement duct 166 and are spaced opposite
`each other.” Id. at 11:63–66. “The bubble valves 10a, 10b communicate
`with the measurement duct 166 through a pair of opposed side passages
`174a and 174b, respectively.” Id. at 11:66–12:1. “An external actuator 176
`is also provided for actuating the bubble valves 10a, 10b, which
`momentarily causes a flow disturbance in the duct to deflect the flow therein
`when activated by the actuator 176.” Id. at 12:3–6.
`This system can distinguish between normal particles 180a and
`particles of interest 180b. Ex. 1001, 12:7–9. When detector 182b senses a
`predetermined characteristic in the particles in measurement region 182a, it
`raises a signal. Id. at 12:12–14. When external actuator 176 receives this
`signal it activates bubble valves 10a, 10b to create a flow disturbance in
`measurement duct 166. Id. at 12:14–16. The flow disturbance deflects the
`particle having the predetermined characteristic so that it flows down first
`branch 172a. Id. at 12:16–20. Actuator 176 creates the flow disturbance by
`causing pressure variations in reservoir 70 of first bubble valve 10a. Id.
`at 12:22–25. Reservoir 70b of second bubble valve 10b is a chamber with a
`resilient wall or contains compressible gas to allow the flow of liquid from
`measurement duct 166 into second side passage 174b. Id. at 12:30–34.
`“Upon activation of the actuator, the pressure within the reservoir of the first
`bubble valve 10a is increased, causing a transient discharge of liquid from
`the first side passage 174a as indicated by the arrow.” Id. at 12:37–41. “The
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`sudden pressure increase caused at this point in the duct causes liquid to
`flow into the second side passage 174b because of the resilient properties of
`the reservoir of the second bubble valve 10b.” Id. at 12:41–44.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 18–24 of the ’528 patent. Pet. 1. Claims
`18 and 22 are independent claims. Claim 18, reproduced below, is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below.
`18. A microfluidic device, comprising:
`a channel for conveying a stream of particles in a carrier
`
`fluid;
`
`an actuator for selectively applying a pressure pulse to
`the stream to deflect a particle in the stream of particles from
`the stream of particles, and
`a buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse.
`F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 18–24 would have been unpatentable
`based on the following grounds:
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Wada1
`18–22
`103(a)
`Wada, Anderson2
`23, 24
`103(a)
`Marcus,3 Anderson
`18–24
`103(a)
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Bernhard H. Weigl, Ph. D.
`Ex. 1002.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner contends that we should exercise discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in the instant proceeding. Prelim.
`
`
`1 WO 00/070080, published November 23, 2000 (Ex. 1006, “Wada”).
`2 WO 97/002357, published January 23, 1997 (Ex. 1012, “Anderson”).
`3 US 5,101,978, issued April 7, 1992 (Ex. 1005, “Marcus”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Resp. 14. Petitioner disagrees. Prelim. Reply 1. Because —based on the
`merits for the reasons discussed below— we deny institution, we do not
`address exercise of discretion under § 314(a).
`B. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, a claim shall be
`construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2019). The Petition was filed February 10, 2020. Thus, we apply the claim
`construction standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Accordingly, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would have been understood by one with ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history,
`other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is
`less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–1317.
`Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp.
`v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017).
`Petitioner asserts that it “does not believe any express claim
`constructions are required for the Board to conclude the asserted prior art
`renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts
`that the terms “pressure pulse” and “buffer” should be construed. Prelim.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Resp. 30. We agree with Patent Owner that construction of the claims terms
`“pressure pulse” and “buffer” is necessary to resolve the controversy. We
`address each term in turn.
`1. Pressure Pulse
`Noting that “[t]he district court rejected Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of ‘pressure pulse’ [in the parallel proceeding]—namely, ‘a
`unidirectional flow to the [microchannel/supply duct]’—and will apply the
`term’s ‘plain and ordinary meaning,’” Patent Owner contends that “the
`Board should also apply the plain and ordinary meaning, which is ‘a
`transient increase in pressure.’” Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 2012, 6–7).
`Patent Owner contends further that “in light of surrounding claim language,
`the Board should find that the claimed ‘pressure pulse’ must travel across
`the “duct” to be ‘absorb[ed]’ by the ‘buffer’ as claimed.” Id. at 31.
`In reply, Petitioner argues that “[a]fter prevailing in arguing the terms
`should be given their plain meaning, [Patent Owner] now attempts to rewrite
`them to categorically exclude pressure pulses generated using hydrodynamic
`flow.” Prelim. Reply. 3. Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s proposed
`definition would require “that the flow stream (as opposed to the pressure
`pulse it generates) cross the entire channel and enter the buffer/reservoir, and
`to require increasing the pressure within the channel instead of simply
`propagating a pulse of pressure (i.e., transient application of force).” Id.
`We agree with the district court in the parallel proceeding that for the
`claim term “pressure pulse,” the plain and ordinary meaning applies.
`Ex. 2012, 5. We also agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “pressure pulse” is “a transient increase in pressure,” because
`this meaning is consistent with the use of this term in the Specification of
`the ’528 patent. Prelim. Resp. 31; Ex. 1001, 4:38–41. We do not agree with
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Petitioner that Patent Owner’s discussion of the context in which this claim
`term is used in any way changes this definition, because Patent Owner’s
`assertions do not require the flow stream to cross the channel as argued by
`Petitioner. Prelim. Reply 3. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision and
`based on the record before us, we construe the claim term “pressure pulse”
`to mean a transient increase in pressure.
`2. Buffer
`In the Markman Order in the parallel proceeding, the district court
`defined ‘“buffer’ to mean ‘a reservoir of fluid that absorbs a pressure
`pulse.’” Ex. 2012, 4. Petitioner asserts that we need not construe this term.
`Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees, then asserts that “in light of Petitioner’s
`arguments, the Board should confirm that the prior art must disclose the
`‘functional’ language associated with ‘buffer,’ namely that it must be ‘for
`absorbing the pressure pulse.’” Prelim. Resp. 34.
`Based on the current record, we determine that is necessary to
`construe the claim term “buffer” in order to resolve the present controversy.
`The term “buffer” does not appear in the Specification of the ‘528 patent,
`making its first appearance in claim 15, which is not challenged in this
`proceeding. We adopt the district court’s definition because, as the district
`court explains, it is consistent with the prosecution history. Ex. 2012, 3.
`Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “buffer” to mean a
`reservoir of fluid that absorbs a pressure pulse.
`C. Ground 1: Claims 18–22 as Unpatentable Over Wada
`Petitioner contends that claims 18–22 are unpatentable over Wada.
`Pet. 20. Petitioner provides supporting evidence, and relies on testimony
`from its declarant, Dr. Weigl, in support of this contention. Id. at 20–46; Ex.
`1002. Patent Owner disagrees, provides supporting evidence, and relies on
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`testimony from its declarant, Don W. Arnold, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001), in support
`of its position. Prelim. Resp. 48–66; Ex. 2001. Before we discuss the merits
`of this challenge, we provide a brief overview of Wada.
`1. Wada
`Wada relates to “[m]ethods and systems for particle focusing to
`increase assay throughput in microscale systems . . . The invention includes
`methods for providing substantially uniform flow velocity to flowing
`particles in microfluidic devices.” Ex. 1006, code 57. Figure 22,
`reproduced below, illustrates one of the embodiments relied upon in this
`challenge. We discuss Figure 22 because it best illustrates the features
`discussed in our analysis in Section II.C.4 below.
`
`
`Figure 22 is “a schematic representation of a particle sorting
`configuration utilizing sets of opposing microchannels to focus and/or
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`otherwise direct the flow of the members of, e.g., a cell population to
`achieve cell sorting.” Ex. 1006, 11:3–5. In this schematic, a main
`microchannel extends from the bottom of the figure upwards. Cells 2200
`flow into the main microchannel from below. The main microchannel splits
`into two microchannels near the top of the figure. Each of these
`microchannels terminate in a collection well 2210. Id. at 20:2. Four side
`microchannels intersect the main microchannel (two on each side) forming
`two pairs of microchannels, one above the other, that intersect the main
`microchannel directly opposite each other. A detector 2204 is located below
`the intersection of the top pair of side microchannels with the main
`microchannel. As shown, the bottom pair of microchannels simultaneously
`introduce hydrodynamic flow 2202 to the main microchannel. Id. at 19:27–
`29. Hydrodynamic flow is also introduced from the top right side
`microchannel. Id. at 19:29–31. Hydrodynamic flow 2202 directs selected
`cells to one particle well and non-selected cells to the other. Id. at 19:29–
`20:2.
`2. Petitioner’s Allegations
`Petitioner addresses each limitation of claims 18–22, explaining how
`Wada discloses or suggests the limitations of these claims. Pet. 20–46. For
`the limitation requiring “a buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse” in claim
`18, Petitioner provides annotated copies of Wada’s Figures 22 and 23,
`reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1006, 15:1; Pet. 30. Figure 23, as annotated by Petitioner, differs from
`the copy of Wada’s Figure 23 reproduced in Section II.C.1 above in that the
`top right side microchannel is highlighted in yellow and labeled “Buffer.” In
`annotated Figure 22 the top left side microchannel is also highlighted in
`yellow and labeled “Buffer.”
`Petitioner asserts that Wada discloses “microfluidic devices [that]
`comprise a buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 133–142; Pet. 14–19). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “Wada[’s]
`Figures 22-23 depict a buffer in the form of a non-actuated, opposing
`microchannel structure disposed opposite the actuated sorting microchannel
`structure (from which the actuator selectively applies the pressure pulse
`represented by arrows 2202 and 2302).” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1006,
`19:23–20:20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 133–134). According to Petitioner, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have understood the non-actuated, opposed
`sorting microchannel structure contains a fluid and receives and absorbs the
`pressure pulse,” because, as explained by Dr. Weigl, “the opening in the
`main flow channel leading to the buffer is aligned with the direction of the
`pressure pulse (substantially perpendicular to the main microchannel) so that
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`the pressure pulse is allowed to flow into the opening and be absorbed by the
`buffer.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–136).
`For the similar limitation in claim 22 requiring “a buffer in
`communication with the second side channel for absorbing the pressure
`pulse,” Petitioner makes similar assertions. Ex. 1006, 16–17; Pet. 44–45.
`3. Patent Owner’s Response
`Patent Owner contends that “[b]ecause there is no ‘pressure pulse’
`disclosed in Wada, there is no ‘buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse’ as
`recited in the challenged claims.” Prelim. Resp. 58. According to Patent
`Owner, “[r]egarding the ‘opposing microchannels,’ they do not ‘absorb’
`anything—they are described as useful solely for introducing ‘hydrodynamic
`flow,’” because “Wada explains that, in Figure 22, ‘[a] second set of
`opposing microchannels is typically located downstream from detector 2204
`for introducing at least one hydrodynamic flow 2202 so as to direct selected
`cells 2208 . . . [into] collection wells 2210.’” Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1006,
`19:29–20:2, 20:8–13). In other words, Patent Owner explains, “when two
`downstream side channels are employed, both are used to introduce flow.”
`Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 22; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 120–123). Patent Owner
`asserts further that “[t]his is entirely consistent with Wada’s reliance on
`Ramsey to teach the sorting operation of Figures 22–23, wherein one of the
`two side channels increases flow, but fluid from the second side channel
`nonetheless continues flowing into the transport channel.” Id. at 60–61
`(citing Ex. 2014, Figs. 16–17 (as annotated in Prelim. Resp. 61), 7:24–50).
`Thus, Patent Owner asserts that “fluid is never received by either side
`channel.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 124–126).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`4. Analysis
`We agree with Patent Owner that Wada does not disclose a buffer as
`required by the challenged claims. Figure 224 of Wada depicts top and
`bottom pairs of opposing microchannels that introduce hydrodynamic flow
`into the main microchannel. Ex. 1006, 19:27– 20:2. Specifically, Wada
`states that “[o]ne set of opposing microchannels is typically located, e.g.,
`upstream from detector 2204 for simultaneously introducing hydrodynamic
`flow 2202 from both microchannels to focus cells 2200.” Id. at 19:27–29.
`Wada also states that “[a] second set of opposing microchannels is typically
`located downstream from detector 2204 for introducing at least one
`hydrodynamic flow 2202 so as to direct selected cells 2208 . . . and non-
`selected cells 2206 into, in this case, one of two microchannels, each
`terminating in particular collection wells 2210.” Id. at 19:29–20:2. Wada
`does not indicate that any of the side microchannels is a buffer or describe
`them in such a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider
`them to be “a reservoir of fluid that absorbs a pressure pulse” in accordance
`with the meaning of the term reservoir. On the record before us, we see no
`indication that a reservoir is used in Wada’s system, and we are not
`persuaded that use of such a reservoir would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`For these reasons, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail with respect to this challenge.
`
`
`4 As above, we discuss Figure 22 because it best describes the features at
`issue. We note that for the features relied upon in Wada, there are no
`substantive differences between Wada’s Figures 22–24.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`D. Ground Two: Claims 23 and 24 as Unpatentable Over Wada and
`Anderson
`Petitioner contends that claims 23 and 24 are unpatentable over the
`combined teachings of Wada and Anderson. Pet. 46. Petitioner provides
`supporting evidence and testimony from Dr. Weigl in support of this
`contention. Id. at 46–52; Ex. 1002. Patent Owner disagrees, and also
`provides supporting evidence and testimony from Dr. Arnold in support of
`its position. Id. Before we discuss the merits of this challenge, we provide a
`brief overview of Anderson.
`1. Anderson
`Anderson relates to “a miniaturized integrated nucleic acid diagnostic
`device and system (522). The device (522) of the invention is generally
`capable of performing one or more sample acquisition and preparation
`operations in combination with one or more sample analysis operations.”
`Ex. 1012, code (57). Anderson’s system utilizes an inlet/outlet valve
`structure to seal its reaction chamber as shown in Figure 2B reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Figure 2B is a schematic representation of a reaction chamber design
`in cut-away view. Id. at 6:22–23. The reaction chamber includes polymeric
`part 102 having a well 104 manufactured into its surface. Id. at 36:37–37:1.
`It also has one or more fluid channels 110, 120 connecting it to an
`inlet/outlet port 108. Id. at 37:9–11. Diaphragm valve 114 attached to
`planar member 112 extends across inlet 108. Id. at 38:17–19. Anderson
`explains that deflection of diaphragm valve 114 may be carried out by a
`variety of methods including application of a vacuum or electromagnetic
`actuators and/or piezoelectric actuators coupled to it. Id. at 38:23–27.
`2. Petitioner’s Allegations
`a. Claim 23
`Petitioner asserts that “Wada renders claim 22 obvious” as discussed
`in Ground 1 above. Pet. 50. Petitioner asserts that “Wada references
`Anderson, which provides more details of actuators and micropumps
`suitable for use in microfluidic devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 180).
`Petitioner asserts that Anderson was specifically referenced and incorporated
`in Wada. Id. at 51. Petitioner asserts that “Anderson teaches ‘[p]umping
`devices that are particularly useful in a variety of micromachined pumps,’
`including those with ‘a bulging diaphragm.’” Id. (citing Ex, 1012, 63:1-13;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 181). Petitioner asserts further that “[b]ased on these disclosures,
`a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that Anderson
`teaches the use of an actuator comprising a flexible membrane (e.g.,
`diaphragm).” Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 181–82).
`b. Claim 24
`Petitioner asserts that “Wada renders claim 22 obvious” and that
`“Wada also discloses the microfluidic device wherein the buffer comprises a
`flexible membrane.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 184–188; Pet. 14–18).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Petitioner also asserts that, “[a]s discussed for claim 23, Anderson teaches
`the use of an actuator comprising a flexible membrane.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 185). As an example, Petitioner asserts that “Anderson discloses using a
`piezoelectrically-actuated diaphragm pump ‘as one surface of the chamber’
`in microfluidic device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 45:3–12; 20:9–17).
`Noting that “in claim 22, the buffer absorbs the pressure pulse,”
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`appreciated that the diaphragm pump of Anderson comprises a flexible
`membrane that absorbs the pressure pulse.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 186).
`Petitioner asserts further that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had good reasons to, and a reasonable expectation of success in, using a
`diaphragm pump comprising a flexible membrane as a buffer in the
`microfluidic device of claim 22.” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 186).
`3. Patent Owner’s Response
`Patent Owner contends that “because independent claim 22 is not
`anticipated or rendered obvious by Wada, it is unnecessary to address
`whether Anderson discloses the ‘flexible membrane’ recited in dependent
`claims 23 and 24.” Prelim. Resp. 66.
`4. Analysis
`We agree with Patent Owner that Anderson does not cure the
`deficiencies in Wada discussed in Section II.C above, because Petitioner
`does not rely on Anderson to meet the limitations pertaining to a “buffer.”
`See Pet. 46–52. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in Section II.C above,
`we determine that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to this challenge.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`E. Ground Three: Claims 18–24 as Unpatentable Over Marcus and
`Anderson
`Petitioner contends that claims 18–24 are unpatentable over the
`combined teachings of Marcus and Anderson. Pet. 52. Petitioner provides
`supporting evidence and testimony from Dr. Weigl in support of this
`contention. Id. at 52–76; Ex. 1002. Patent Owner disagrees, and provides
`supporting evidence and testimony from Dr. Arnold in support of its
`position. Id. at 67–74; Ex. 2001. Before we discuss the merits of this
`challenge, we provide a brief overview of Marcus.
`1. Marcus
`Marcus “relates to a fluidic sorting device for the separation of two or
`more different materials or particles which are suspended in a fluid.”
`Ex. 1005, 1:13–15. Marcus’ device is illustrated in Figure 1 reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`Figure 1 is “a schematic diagram of a fluidic sorting device.”
`Ex. 1005, 3:21–22. It shows fluidic logic element 1 extending from left to
`right having input flow port 2 at one end and control ports 3, 4 located about
`half way between the left and right ends. Id. at 3:30–34. At the right end of
`fluidic logic element 1, it splits into two output ports 5, 6. Id. at 3:33–36.
`Two types of particles 7, 8 flow through fluidic logic element 1. Id. at 3:47.
`Particles 7 are sorted into output 7 and particles 8 are sorted into output 5.
`Id. at 3:61–62. At a point just downstream from input flow port 2, a
`machine vision apparatus is connected to fluidic logic element 1. Id. at
`3:36–38. Machine vision apparatus 16 includes camera lens 9, image
`capture device 10, image interpretation device 11, and decision control
`device 12. Id. at 3:38–41. Machine vision apparatus 16 may also include
`counter device 13. Id. at 3:41–43.
`In operation, a suspension containing particles 7 and 8 “is forced
`through input flow port 2.” Id. at 3:49–51. Machine vision camera lens 9
`reads the appearance of particles 7 and 8 and transmits what is read to image
`capture device 10. Id. at 3:52–54. Image capture device 10 forwards what it
`sees to image interpretation device 11 which interprets and registers a
`distinction between particles 7 and 8. Id. at 3:54–57. This distinction is then
`transmitted to control decision device 12 which signals fluidic controller
`device 14 to instruct control ports 3, 4 to separate out particles 7 and 8 by
`sorting them into output ports 5 and 6. Id. at 57–62.
`2. Petitioner’s Allegations
`Petitioner contends that Marcus and Anderson disclose or suggest all
`of the limitations of claims 18–24. Pet. 52–76. For the limitation in claim
`18 requiring “a buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse,” Petitioner contends
`that “Marcus teaches a buffer for absorbing the pressure pulse.” Id. at 59
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–219; Pet. 14–18); Ex. 1001, 15:21. As an example,
`Petitioner asserts that “Marcus Figure 1 teaches a buffer in the form of the
`non-actuated sorting microchannel structure (e.g., fluid control port 3 when
`selected particle is deflected into outlet port 5) disposed opposite the
`actuated sorting microchannel structure (e.g., fluid control port 4).” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1005, 3:28–62; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–213). Petitioner asserts that
`“[b]ased on the teachings of Marcus and Anderson, a [person of ordinary
`skill in the art] would recognize that the pressure pulse flows from only one
`of the opposed sorting microchannel structures (e.g., fluidic control port 4)
`and toward the non-actuated, opposed sorting microchannel structure (e.g.,
`fluidic control port 3).” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 213). Petitioner asserts
`further that “[t]he non-actuated, opposed sorting microchannel structure in
`Figure 1 contains a fluid, and is configured to receive and absorb the
`pressure pulse because it is aligned with the direction of the pressure pulse
`(substantially perpendicular to the main microchannel). Id.
`3. Patent Owner’s Response
`Patent Owner responds that “Marcus and Anderson fail to disclose the
`claimed ‘pressure pulse’ and ‘buffer’ limitations recited in independent
`claims 18 and 22.” Prelim. Resp. 67. Patent Owner asserts that “Marcus’s
`very limited disclosure describes only dual-actuated control ports to sort
`particles, which teaches away from using the ports as an actuator that
`dispatches a pressure pulse and a buffer that absorbs it.” Id. Patent Owner
`asserts further that “Anderson does not supply the missing limitations or
`reasons to combine because it discloses only fluid supply pumps that deliver
`a sample through a transport channel.” Id.
`Specifically, regarding the buffer Patent Owner asserts that Marcus
`explains that “both control ports 3 and 4 are actuated by fluidic controller
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`device 14 and thus are not passive ‘buffers’ that absorb a pressure pulse.”
`Id. at 70. Patent Owner asserts further that “Marcus explains that particle
`characteristics are ‘transmitted to a control decision device 12 which signals
`a fluidic controller device 14 to instruct control ports A and B, 4 and 3
`respectively, to separate out said particles 7 and 8.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`3:57–61). According to Patent Owner, “the mere fact that two control ports
`are ‘aligned’ with one another does not mean one of them ‘absorbs’ fluid or
`pressure.” Id. at 70–71 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 156; Prelim. Resp. 58–63).
`4. Analysis
`We agree with Patent Owner that Marcus does not disclose a buffer as
`claimed, and Anderson does not cure this deficiency in Marcus. Marcus
`discloses fluidic logic element 1 having opposing control ports 3, 4.
`Ex. 1005, 3:33–34. In Marcus, fluidic control device 14 is instructed to
`control these valves (i.e. open and close them) to separate out particles 7 and
`8. Id. at 3:59–61. Marcus does not disclose or suggest that control ports 3, 4
`are buffers. Anderson does not cure this deficiency in Marcus because
`Petitioner does not rely on Anderson to meet the limitations pertaining to a
`“buffer.” See Pet. 52–76.
`For this reason, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to this challenge.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing that claims 18–24 of the ’528 patent are unpatentable.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00545
`Patent 6,877,528 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Lora Green
`lgreen@wsgr.com
`
`Douglas Carsten
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Jad A. Mills
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Kirt S. O’Neill
`koneill@akingump.com
`
`Daniel L. Moffett
`dmoffett@akingump.com
`
`George Andrew Rosbrook
`arosbrook@akingump.com
`
`Dorian Ojemen
`dojemen@akingump.com
`
`
`
`22
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket