IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`
`
`MÖLNLYCKE HEALTH CARE AB
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________________
`
`Case: PGR2018-00035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,642,750 B2
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ................................................................ 3 
`
`A.  Real Parties-In-Interest .................................................................................... 3 
`
`B.  Related Matters ................................................................................................ 3 
`
`C.  Notice Of Lead And Backup Counsel And Service Information .................... 4 
`
`III.  Grounds For Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)) ............................................... 4 
`
`Identification Of Challenged Claims And Specific Statutory Grounds
`IV. 
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1)-(2)) ................................................................................... 5 
`
`Effective Filing Date Of The Challenged Claims And Eligibility For
`V. 
`Post-Grant Review ..................................................................................................... 6 
`
`VI.  Background And Summary Of The ’750 Patent ............................................. 8 
`
`A.  Summary Of The ’750 Patent’s Specification ................................................. 9 
`
`B.  Summary Of Prosecution History ................................................................. 10 
`
`VII.  Claim Construction And Level Of Skill In The Art ...................................... 11 
`
`A.  Proposed Claim Constructions ...................................................................... 12 
`
`1.  “Unobstructed Visualization” .................................................................... 12 
`
`2.  “Duct Wall” ................................................................................................ 12 
`
`3.  “Partition Wall” .......................................................................................... 13 
`
`B.  Level Of Skill In The Art .............................................................................. 13 
`
`VIII.  Grounds Of Unpatentability ....................................................................... 14 
`
`A.  Ground 1 – Claims 18-24 Are Invalid Because The Written
`Description Of The ’750 Patent Does Not Satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 .................... 14 
`
`1.  Written Description Legal Standard........................................................... 14 
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`2.  Claim 18 Does Not Satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 .............................................. 16 
`
`3.  Claims 18-24 Must Find Written Description Support In Figures
`15A-D And The Accompanying Text ............................................................... 18 
`
`(18.1) The “attachment portion adapted to be attached to a wound
`4. 
`cover member” .................................................................................................. 21 
`
`5. 
`
`(18.2) The “suction device” ....................................................................... 22 
`
`(18.2.1) The “suction device” Requires A “fluid inlet” In The
`a. 
`“attachment portion” ...................................................................................... 22 
`
`b. 
`
`(18.2.2) The “suction device” Also Requires “a fluid outlet” ................ 24 
`
`(18.2.3)The “suction device” Requires “a connection portion
`c. 
`adapted to . . . provide a fluid communication between said fluid inlet
`and said fluid outlet” ...................................................................................... 27 
`
`6. 
`
`(18.3) The “connection portion” ................................................................ 29 
`
`(18.3.1) There Is No Written Description Support For A
`a. 
`“connection portion” That Includes “an inspection portion that is
`transparent to thereby facilitate the positioning of said suction device
`relative to said wound cover member” .......................................................... 30 
`
`(18.3.2) The “connection portion” Must Include A “duct wall”
`b. 
`That “at least partially defines a connection duct from said inlet to
`said outlet” ..................................................................................................... 32 
`
`(18.3.3) There Is No Disclosure Of “a duct wall” That Includes
`c. 
`An “inspection portion” ................................................................................. 33 
`
`(18.3.4) There Is No Disclosure That Supports “a partition wall
`d. 
`extending at least partially from said duct wall” ........................................... 35 
`
`7.  Claim 18 Was Copied From An Application For A Completely
`Different Invention, Which Explains The Lack Of Written Description
`Support In The ’750 Patent ............................................................................... 37 
`
`8.  Dependent Claims 19-24 Suffer From The Same Infirmities, And
`Are Also Invalid ................................................................................................ 41 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 1-17 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) For
`Lack Of Written Description ................................................................................ 41 
`
`1.  The ’750 Patent Does Not Provide Written Description Support For
`The “unobstructed visualization” Limitation In Claims 1-17 ........................... 43 
`
`intermediate wall extending
`2.  There Is No Support For “an
`perpendicularly from the downwardly extending material to partition the
`first channel from the second channel” In Claims 1-17 .................................... 44 
`
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 1-4 And 6-17 Are Anticipated By The Public Sale
`And/Or Public Disclosure Of SensaTRAC .......................................................... 46 
`
`1.  An air conduit exits within the dome of the port in the SensaTRAC
`device; ............................................................................................................... 83 
`
`2.  The air conduit is located within an intermediate wall that extends
`perpendicularly from the wall separating the dome from the tube fitting
`in the port; and ................................................................................................... 83 
`
`3.  The intermediate wall partitions the central opening of the port (first
`channel) from the air conduit (second channel). ............................................... 83 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 1-4 And 6-17 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`SensaTRAC .......................................................................................................... 98 
`
`E.  Ground 5: Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over SensaTRAC In
`View Of Hu .......................................................................................................... 99 
`
`F.  Ground 6: Claims 1-4 And 6-17 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`SensaTRAC In View Of Vess ............................................................................102 
`
`G.  Ground 7: Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over SensaTRAC In
`View Of Vess And In Further View Of Hu ........................................................107 
`
`H.  Ground 8: Claims 1-4 And 6-17 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`SensaTRAC In View Of Hirsch .........................................................................108 
`
`I.  Ground 9: Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over SensaTRAC In
`View Of Hirsch In Further View Of Hu ............................................................115 
`
`J.  Ground 10: Claims 1-4 And 6-17 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`SensaTRAC In View Of Vess And In View Of Hirsch .....................................116 
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`K.  Ground 11: Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over SensaTRAC In
`View Of Vess And In View Of Hirsch And In Further View Of Hu .................116 
`
`L.  Ground 12: Claims 1-17 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`Because The Term “Unobstructed” Is Indefinite ...............................................116 
`
`1.  The Specification Never Mentions Or Explains The Term
`“Unobstructed” ................................................................................................117 
`
`IX.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................119 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Page(s)
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 7, 14, 15
`
`Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Ex parte Miyazaki,
`89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) ........................................................................ 118
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 16
`
`In re Kaslow,
`707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 117, 118
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics(UK) Ltd.,
`PGR 2015-00017, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015) ........................................... 7
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015-00019, Paper 17, at 13 (P.T.A.B. January 29, 2016) ........................... 6
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1001 ...................................................................................................... 55
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 60, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) ................................................................................................ 100
`
`35 U.S.C. § 100(i) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 100(i)(1) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 .................................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ............................................................................................. 109
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 109
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ......................................................................................... 3, 6, 117
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ...................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 5
`
`AIA § 3(n)(1) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`AIA §§ 3(n)(1) and 6(f)(2)(A). .............................................................................. 6, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,642,750 (“the '750 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution history of the '750 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,327,065 (“the ‘065 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,801,685 (“the ‘685 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/369,008 (“the ‘008 Application”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/332,440 (“the ‘440 Application”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/289,358 (“the ‘358 Application”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0359951, assigned to MHC
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Prosecution history of the 14/761,335 Patent Application (“the ‘335 Application”
`or “the MHC Application”)
`Expert Declaration by Dr. Michael Helmus
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Expert Declaration by Carianne Nilsson
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0137775 (“Hu”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0227968 (“Vess”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0106108 and U.S. Provisional Patent App. No.
`61/109,360 (“Hirsch”)
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstruct, accessed February 2, 2018
`(relevant portions)
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duct, accessed February 2, 2018
`(relevant portions)
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partition, accessed February 2, 2018
`(relevant portions)
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/side%20by%20side,
`February 2, 2018 (relevant portions)
`KCI user’s manual, December, 2006
`
`accessed
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Trademark prosecution history for SENSAT.R.A.C.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Presentation from KCI
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`Certified English translation of “Presentation from KCI”
`
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Certification of translation of “Presentation from KCI”
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`https://www.itnonline.com/content/kci-launches-next-generation-wound-care-
`therapy-systems, “KCI Launches Next Generation Wound Care Therapy
`Systems,” August 30, 2007
`KCI product catalog, 2009
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`KCI user’s manual, March 5, 2010
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`510K filing K062227 by KCI with the Food and Drug Administration on
`September 27, 2006
`510K filing K022011 by KCI with the Food and Drug Administration on June 19,
`2002
`Images of SensaTRAC produced in 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200, Petitioner Mölnlycke
`
`Health Care AB (“MHC”) petitions for post-grant review of claims 1-24 of U.S.
`
`Patent 9,642,750 (Ex. 1001, “the ’750 patent”). The ’750 Patent is directed to
`
`apparatuses, devices, and kits for negative pressure wound therapy (“NPWT”).
`
`The ’750 Patent is eligible for post-grant review because claims 1-24, which
`
`were added after the America Invents Act went into effect, are not supported either
`
`by the ’750 Patent’s disclosure (which was also filed after the AIA went into
`
`effect), or the disclosure of any of its parent applications. Consequently, claims 1-
`
`24 do not receive the benefit of the filing dates of any of the cited priority
`
`applications, and the ’750 Patent is eligible for post-grant review.
`
`On the merits, the claims of the ’750 Patent—all of which were added after
`
`the ’750 Patent was filed and years after the claimed priority date—appear to be an
`
`effort to draft claims to cover established negative pressure wound treatment
`
`systems, and are thus invalid. As might be expected from claims that were added to
`
`an application years after the initial filing and after the industry has developed in
`
`the interim, all of the claims of the ’750 Patent suffer from several fatal flaws that
`
`result from the ’750 Patent’s lack of support for these recently-added claims.
`
`First, claims 18 and 21-24 were copied verbatim from an MHC application
`
`for an entirely different approach to a negative pressure wound treatment device.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`When transported into the ’750 Patent, those claims, as well as dependent claims
`
`19 and 20, find no written description support for several elements. Thus, claims
`
`18-24 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). For the same reason, the ’750 Patent is
`
`eligible for post grant review.
`
`Second, claims 1-17 were not copied from the MHC Application, but were
`
`still added after the ’750 Patent was filed, and are still invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112(a) because there is no written description for several elements of the
`
`claims—all of which were added after the ’750 Patent was filed. The terms
`
`“unobstructed visualization” and “an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly
`
`from the downwardly extending material to partition the first channel from the
`
`second channel” are absent from the specification of the ’750 Patent—either
`
`literally or in concept—and therefore lack written description support under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(a) and are invalid. For this additional reason, the ’750 Patent is
`
`eligible for post grant review.
`
`Third, claims 1-17 are invalid because they either lack novelty and/or are
`
`obvious. Claims 1-17 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 in view of the
`
`public sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`
`the well-known
`
`SensaT.R.A.C.® (“SensaTRAC”) commercial NPWT product. SensaTRAC
`
`discloses each and every element of claims 1-4 and 6-17, and therefore anticipates
`
`those claims. Claim 5 would have been obvious over the SensaTRAC device. To
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`the extent there are differences between the SensaTRAC and claims 1-17, those
`
`differences reflect either obvious engineering choices or are disclosed in other
`
`prior art NPWT systems, including Hu (Ex. 1012, U.S. 2010/0137775), Vess (Ex.
`
`1013, U.S. 2009/0227968), and Hirsch (Ex. 1014, U.S. Provisional App. No.
`
`61/109,360).
`
`Fourth, Claims 1-17 are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),
`
`because the term “unobstructed” is indefinite.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest
`The real party in interest for this petition is Petitioner, Mölnlycke Health
`
`Care AB. Mölnlycke Health Care AB is a subsidiary of MHC Sweden AB, which
`
`is a subsidiary of Mölnlycke Holding AB, which is a subsidiary of Mölnlycke AB,
`
`which are all privately held companies and subsidiaries. Mölnlycke AB is owned
`
`by Investor AB, a publicly traded company. All of these companies, MHC
`
`Sweden AB, Mölnlycke Holding AB, Mölnlycke AB, and Investor AB, are also
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Pending Applications: U.S. Patent Application No. 15/198,690, filed June
`
`30, 2016; U.S. Patent Application No. 15/256,349, filed September 2, 2016; and
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/681,165, filed August 18, 2017, are pending in the
`
`U.S. Patent Office and each claims priority to the ’750 Patent’s filing date.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`There are no infringement actions or other related matters.
`
`C. Notice Of Lead And Backup Counsel And Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), MHC appoints
`
`MITCHELL A. KATZ (Reg. No. 33,919) as lead counsel and RICHARD W.
`
`MILLER (Reg. No. 59,386) as first back-up counsel and E. JONAS JARVHOLM
`
`(Reg. No. 69,289) as second back-up counsel. All counsel for MHC can be reached
`
`by mail at Ballard Spahr LLP, 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia,
`
`30309-4471; by phone at (678) 420-9300; by fax at (678) 420-9301; and at the
`
`following email for service and all communications:
`
`PGR9642750@ballardspahr.com
`
`MHC consents to electronic service. MHC has executed and is concurrently
`
`filing a Power of Attorney appointing the above-named counsel.
`
`III. Grounds For Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a))
`MHC certifies that it has standing to request and is not barred from
`
`requesting a post-grant review of the ’750 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321.
`
`Neither MHC nor any privy of MHC has filed any civil action challenging the
`
`validity of any claim of the ’750 Patent or previously requested a post-grant review
`
`or inter partes review of the ’750 Patent.
`
`MHC also certifies that it is filing this petition not later than nine months
`
`after the date the ’750 Patent was granted, May 9, 2017. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.202.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`Identification Of Challenged Claims And Specific Statutory Grounds
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1)-(2))
`
`IV.
`
`MHC respectfully requests review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the
`
`’750 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`5
`
`5
`
`Description
`Claims
`Lack of Written Description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
`18-24
`Lack of Written Description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
`1-17
`1-4 and 6-17 Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in 2007
`1-4 and 6-17 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in 2007
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in 2007 in view of Hu, having an effective
`filing date of November 25, 2008
`1-4 and 6-17 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view of Vess
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view of Vess, in further view of Hu
`1-4 and 6-17 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view Hirsch, made publicly available on
`April 29, 2010
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view Hirsch, in further view of Hu
`1-4 and 6-17 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view of Vess and in view of Hirsch
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the public
`sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure of
`SensaTRAC in view of Vess and in view of Hirsch, in
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`
`further view of Hu
`Lack of Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`12
`
`1-17
`
`
`
`V. Effective Filing Date Of The Challenged Claims And Eligibility For
`Post-Grant Review
`
`The post-grant review provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) apply
`
`to any patent containing one or more claims with an effective filing date after
`
`March 15, 2013. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1) and 6(f)(2)(A). A claim is only entitled to an
`
`effective filing date based on an earlier filed patent application if the earlier
`
`application fully supports the claimed invention in compliance with the written
`
`description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 100(i)(1), 119(e), 120; Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333,
`
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`As is the case here, where the priority applications do not adequately support
`
`a patent’s claims under § 112, the effective filing date of those claims for purposes
`
`of post-grant review eligibility is the patent’s actual filing date. See US
`
`Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 17,
`
`at 13 (P.T.A.B. January 29, 2016) (“[I]f claims 12-16 are shown to lack adequate
`
`§ 112 support in the ’311 application and all of the earlier applications to which
`
`priority is claimed, the effective filing date for those claims is the actual filing date
`
`of the ’311 application.”). If even a single claim in a patent lacks section 112
`
`support, every claim in that patent is eligible for post-grant review. 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`§ 100(i); Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics(UK) Ltd., PGR 2015-00017, Paper 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015).
`
`The application leading to the ’750 patent, was filed on February 8, 2016.
`
`(Ex. 1002.) The ’750 patent is a continuation of and claims priority to a number of
`
`earlier filed applications: App. No. 14/267,636, filed on May 1, 2014 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,327,065) (Ex. 1003); App. No. 13/381,885, filed as application No.
`
`PCT/US2010/061938 on December 22, 2010 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,801,685) (Ex.
`
`1004); App. No. 61/369,008, filed July 29, 2010 (Ex. 1005); App. No. 61/332,440,
`
`filed May 7, 2010 (Ex. 1006); and App. No. 61/289,358, filed December 22, 2009
`
`(Ex. 1007). As described below, neither the ’750 Patent nor any application to
`
`which it claims priority provides adequate support for claims 1-24.
`
`Regarding claims 18-24, there is no disclosure in the ’750 Patent or its
`
`priority applications that describe or enable several elements, including: a
`
`“connection portion comprising an inspection portion,” a “duct wall comprising
`
`[an] inspection portion,” and “connection portion comprising a partition wall
`
`extending at least partially from [the] duct wall.” As detailed below, neither the
`
`’750 Patent nor any of the cited priority applications “clearly allow[s] persons of
`
`skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad
`
`Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The failure
`
`of the ’750 Patent to support these elements (1) renders claims 18-24 invalid under
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`§112(a) and (2) demonstrates, for purposes of PGR eligibility determination, that
`
`the ’750 Patent is deemed to be filed on its actual filing date (February 8, 2016).
`
`There is also no disclosure in the ’750 Patent or its priority applications that
`
`describe or enable several elements of claims 1-17, including: (1) “unobstructed”
`
`and (2) “an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly from the downwardly
`
`extending material to partition the first channel from the second channel.” The
`
`priority applications’ failure to provide adequate § 112(a) support provides an
`
`independent basis to conclude that the ’750 Patent’s “effective filing date” for
`
`purposes of PGR eligibility is deemed to be its actual filing date (February 8,
`
`2016). Consequently, the PGR provisions of the AIA apply to the ’750 Patent. AIA
`
`§ 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293; Inguran, PGR 2015-00017, Paper 8. The ’750 Patent is
`
`therefore eligible for post-grant review under AIA §§ 3(n)(1) and 6(f)(2)(A).
`
`VI. Background And Summary Of The ’750 Patent
`The ’750 Patent is titled “Apparatuses and Methods for Negative Pressure
`
`Wound Therapy.” It was filed on February 8, 2016, and it issued on May 9, 2017.
`
`The ’750 Patent claims priority to applications filed as early as December 22,
`
`2009. The claims of the ’750 Patent are not, however, entitled to the priority dates
`
`of any of these earlier applications, because they recite subject matter that is
`
`entirely absent from both the ’750 Patent, and all of the applications in its priority
`
`chain.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`Summary Of The ’750 Patent’s Specification
`
`A.
`The ’750 Patent discloses various embodiments of NPWT apparatuses. (Ex.
`
`1001.) The disclosure in Figures 15A-D and described at 22:1-26:2 is relevant to
`
`claims 1-24. Figure 15B, annotated below, is representative and illustrates the
`
`disclosure. (Ex. 1010, ¶43.)
`
`The ’750 Patent discloses a NPWT apparatus having an applicator that is
`
`attached to a wound cover at one end and to a bridge at the other end. The bridge is
`
`an elongate structure that contains upper and lower channel layers. These two
`
`channel layers are constructed from an upper layer, an intermediate layer, and a
`
`bottom layer to form two channels in a vertical arrangement. The lower channel is
`
`under vacuum and removes the exudate from the wound. The upper channel has an
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`air leak that draws air in from the atmosphere and moves it over the wound and out
`
`through the lower channel. The bridge also contains a viewing window to view the
`
`wound when placing the apparatus over the wound during installation and during
`
`treatment. (Ex. 1010, ¶44.)
`
`Summary Of Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that issued as the ’750 Patent was filed on February 8, 2016.
`
`The ’750 Patent application is a continuation of App. No. 14/267,636, filed on May
`
`1, 2014 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,327,065); which is a continuation of App. No.
`
`13/381,885, filed as application No. PCT/US2010/061938 on December 22, 2010
`
`(now U.S. Pat. No. 8,801,685); which claims priority to three provisional
`
`applications: App. No. 61/369,008, filed July 29, 2010; App. No. 61/332,440, filed
`
`May 7, 2010; and App. No. 61/289,358, filed December 22, 2009. (Ex. 1010,
`
`¶45.)
`
`Eight days after filing the ’750 Patent, the applicant cancelled all claims and
`
`added a new claim set that included two separate groups of claims. The first group,
`
`which issued as claims 1-17, was directed to a NPWT apparatus apparently, and
`
`without admission that it is actually supported by these figures, attempting to claim
`
`the embodiment of Figures 15A-D. (Ex. 1010, ¶46.)
`
`The second group of claims, which issued as claims 18 and 21-24, were
`
`copied directly from Petitioner MHC’s co-pending patent application no.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,642,750
`14/761,335 (Ex. 1009), filed July 16, 2015 (“the MHC Application”) in an attempt
`
`to provoke an interference. The claims that issued as claims 19-20, which are
`
`directly and indirectly, respectively, dependent upon claim 18, were also added at
`
`that time, but were not copied directly from the MHC Application. The applicant
`
`provided a statement in the remarks of that amendment directing the Examiner to
`
`consider “the possible correspondence between the claims of the present [the ’750
`
`Patent] application and the claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/761,335 [the
`
`MHC application], as Claims 71, and 74-77 of the instant application are
`
`substantial copies of Claims 1, 9, and 11-13 of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/761,335 respectively.” (Ex. 1002, p.111.) (Ex. 1010, ¶47.)
`
`On March 9, 2017, the Examiner allowed all claims on the first office action.
`
`The Examiner's Reasons F