Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: August 7, 2018
`
`
`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
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`____________
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review
`37 C.F.R. § 41.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: August 7, 2018
`
`
`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
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`____________
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review
`37 C.F.R. § 41.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, Mölnlycke Health Care AB (“MHC”), filed a Petition
`(Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting post-grant review of all 24 claims of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,642,750 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’750 patent”). Patent Owner, Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to
`determine whether to institute review.
`A post-grant review may not be instituted unless “the information
`presented in the petition . . . if such information is not rebutted, would
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the
`reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has not adequately
`demonstrated that the ’750 patent is eligible for post-grant review. We,
`therefore, do not institute post-grant review of any claim of the ’750 patent.
`
`A. RELATED MATTERS
`Petitioner identifies the following applications that claim priority to
`the ’750 patent’s filing date: U.S. Patent Application No. 15/198,690, filed
`June 30, 2016 (issued as US 9,999,547 B2 on June 19, 2018); U.S. Patent
`Application No. 15/256,349, filed September 2, 2016 (issued as
`US 9,974,695 B2 on May 22, 2018); and U.S. Patent Application No.
`15/681,165, filed August 18, 2017. Pet. 3.
`
`B. THE ’750 PATENT
`The ’750 patent is directed to apparatuses and methods for negative-
`pressure wound therapy. Ex. 1001, 1:20–25. Such therapy is employed for
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`“treatment of open or chronic wounds that are too large to spontaneously
`close or otherwise fail to heal.” Id. at 1:29–32. The Specification explains:
`
`Negative pressure wound treatment systems currently known in
`the art commonly involve placing a cover that is impermeable
`to liquids over the wound, using various means to seal the cover
`to the tissue of the patient surrounding the wound, and
`connecting a source of negative pressure (such as a vacuum
`pump) to the cover in a manner so that an area of negative
`pressure is created under the cover in the area of the wound.
`Id. at 1:32–39. Although the patent discloses a number of embodiments, the
`parties agree that the embodiment of Figures 15A–15D are relevant to the
`issues raised in the Petition. See Pet. 20; Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Figures 15A
`and 15B are reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 15A illustrates a “negative pressure wound treatment system 1501
`comprising a flexible suction adapter.” Ex. 1001, 22:1–3. The illustrated
`system comprises “a bridge 1502 having a proximal end 1503 and a distal
`end 1505 and an applicator 1520 at the distal end 1505 of the bridge 1502.”
`Id. at 22:7–10.
`
`Figure 15B illustrates an exploded view of the flexible suction adapter,
`showing a bridge that comprises “an upper channel layer 1512 sandwiched
`between an upper layer 1510 and an intermediate layer 1514, with a lower
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`channel layer 1516 sandwiched between the intermediate layer 1514 and a
`bottom layer 1518.” Id. at 22:10–14. The upper layer of the bridge includes a
`“viewing window 1522 that permits targeting and visualization of the wound
`site prior to placement of the system 1501 as well as ongoing monitoring of
`the wound site during the course of treatment.” Id. at 24:65–25:2. The
`Specification describes that, preferably, the viewing window “is at least
`partially transparent.” Id. at 25:8–11. “[A] connector 1504 is provided at the
`proximal end 1503 which may be used to connect the lower channel layer
`1516 to a source of negative pressure,” thus permitting “wound exudate to
`be suctioned away from the wound and for negative pressure to be applied to
`the wound site.” Id. at 23:1–11.
`
`C. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Challenged claims 1 and 18 are independent, illustrative of the
`claimed subject matter, and reproduced below:
`1. An apparatus to provide suction to a wound site comprising:
`a suction adapter configured to be sealed to a wound cover
`covering a wound site, the suction adapter comprising:
`an applicator configured to be positioned over an
`opening in the wound cover, the applicator
`comprising at least one aperture; and
`a bridge portion connected to the applicator and
`comprising at least a first channel and a second
`channel extending parallel to an upper surface of the
`applicator, wherein at least one of the first channel
`and second channel is configured to provide suction
`to the wound site through the aperture in the
`applicator from a source of negative pressure;
`a visualization window provided in an upper surface of
`the bridge portion over the at least one aperture in the
`applicator that provides unobstructed visualization
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`from outside of the suction adapter, through the
`visualization window and through the aperture in the
`applicator;
`wherein the bridge portion comprises material extending
`downwardly from the upper surface of the bridge
`portion to thereby connect the bridge portion to the
`applicator; and
`an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly from the
`downwardly extending material to partition the first
`channel from the second channel.
`Ex. 1001, 52:2–29.
`18. A suction device for a negative pressure wound therapy
`system,
`said suction device comprising an attachment portion
`adapted to be attached to a wound cover member,
`said suction device comprising a fluid inlet being at least
`partially circumscribed by said attachment portion,
`said suction device also comprising a fluid outlet,
`said suction device further comprising a connection portion
`adapted to, at least during one operation condition of
`said suction device, provide a fluid communication
`between said fluid inlet and said fluid outlet,
`said connection portion comprising an inspection
`portion that is transparent to thereby facilitate the
`positioning of said suction device relative to said
`wound cover member,
`wherein said connection portion comprises a duct wall at
`least partially defining a connection duct from said
`inlet to said outlet,
`said duct wall comprising said inspection portion,
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`said connection portion comprising a partition wall
`extending at least partially from said duct wall.
`Id. at 53:9–26.1
`
`D. PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:2
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1–24
`
`1-4 and 6-17
`1-4 and 6-17
`5
`1-4 and 6-17
`5
`1–4 and 6–17
`5
`1–4 and 6–17
`
`Basis
`§ 112(a) written
`description
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`
`n/a
`
`SensaTRAC3
`SensaTRAC
`SensaTRAC and Hu4
`SensaTRAC and Vess5
`SensaTRAC, Vess, and Hu
`SensaTRAC and Hirsch6
`SensaTRAC, Hirsch, and Hu
`SensaTRAC, Vess, and Hirsch
`
`
`1 We have formatted the language of claim 18 by adding line breaks and
`indentation to help clarify the claimed structures. Our formatting does not
`indicate any additional restriction or relationship of any type beyond the
`unformatted claim that appears in the ’750 patent.
`2 The America Invents Act included revisions to, inter alia, 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102, 103, and 112 effective on March 16, 2013. If the ’750 patent is
`eligible for post-grant review, the AIA versions of those sections apply.
`3 Petitioner relies on the “public sale, offer for sale, and/or public disclosure
`of SensaTRAC in 2007” (Exs. 1019–1029). Pet. 5; accord id. at 46–59.
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0137775 A1 (Ex. 1012).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0227968 A1 (Ex. 1013).
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0106108 A1 and U.S.
`Provisional Patent App. No. 61/109,360 (Ex. 1014).
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`Claim(s)
`5
`
`1–17
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 112(b)
`definiteness
`
`Reference(s)
`SensaTRAC, Vess, Hirsch, and
`Hu
`n/a
`
`Pet. 5–6. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Michael Helmus
`(Ex. 1010) and the Declaration of Carianne Nilsson (Ex. 1011).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board interprets unexpired claims using the “broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, we generally give a claim
`term its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the
`term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the
`time of the invention when “read in view of the specification.” In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal
`quotation and citation omitted). The specification may impose a specialized
`meaning, departing from the ordinary and customary meaning, by defining a
`term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30
`F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, a party in a post-grant review
`may prove “the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer” that
`narrowed a term’s definition in the prosecution history of a challenged
`patent. TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1063–64 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (quoting Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d
`1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`1. “unobstructed visualization”
`Petitioner argues that the term “unobstructed visualization” is
`indefinite but that, if we determine otherwise, it should be construed as “an
`unblocked view of the wound site.” Pet. 12. Petitioner also asserts that the
`term requires “an unblocked view of the wound site with no intermediate
`elements present below the visualization window to [sic] through the
`aperture in the applicator” such that “the view . . . does not pass through
`anything but empty space.” Id. at 117–18. Patent Owner characterizes
`Petitioner’s proposed construction as unhelpful but does not propose a
`different construction at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (“[U]nder any
`conceivable construction, the specification fully discloses the claimed
`invention.”). We adopt Petitioner’s construction for purposes of this
`decision.
`
`2. “duct wall”
`Petitioner asserts that the term “duct wall” should be construed as the
`wall of “a pipe, tube, or channel that conveys a substance.” Pet. 12‒13.
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction at this
`stage. Prelim. Resp. 14. We adopt Petitioner’s construction for purposes of
`this decision.
`
`3. “partition wall”
`Petitioner asserts that a “partition wall” should be construed as “an
`interior dividing wall.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
`proposed construction at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 14. We adopt Petitioner’s
`construction for purposes of this decision.
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`B. ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`Post-grant review is available for a patent that issues from an
`application “that contains or contained at any time . . . a claim to a claimed
`invention that has an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of
`title 35, United States Code, that is on or after” March 16, 2013. See Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub L. No. 112-29 (“AIA”) §§ 3(n)(1),
`6(f)(2)(A), 125 Stat. 284, 293, 311 (2011), available at
`https://go.usa.gov/xQA4b; 35 U.S.C. § 100(i). Petitioner bears the burden of
`proving that the challenged patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file
`provisions of the AIA and eligible for post-grant review. US Endodontics,
`LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, 9–10
`(PTAB Dec. 28, 2016).
`Petitioner submits that because applications on which the ’750 patent
`relies for an effective filing date do not provide written-description support
`for the issued claims, no claim of the ’750 patent is entitled to an effective
`filing date before the actual filing date of the application for the ’750 patent,
`February 8, 2016.7 Pet. 7–8, 14–46. Thus, Petitioner contends, the claims are
`eligible for post-grant review. Id.
`Patent Owner responds that disclosures supporting the claims of the
`’750 patent were submitted by May 7, 2010, and maintained in the chain of
`
`
`7 Because the ’750 patent issued from a continuation application (Ex. 1001,
`[63]), the question of its effective filing date is the same as the question of
`whether the claims have adequate written-description support in the
`Specification of the ’750 patent under § 112. We therefore address the
`issue of effective filing date by reference to the Specification of the ’750
`patent.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`applications leading to that for the ’750 patent. Prelim. Resp. 16–52. Thus,
`Patent Owner argues, the claims are ineligible for post-grant review. Id.
`The dispute spawns two arguments—one for each independent claim
`of the ’750 patent. If Petitioner is correct about either independent claim, the
`patent is available for post-grant review as described above. See, e.g.,
`Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics(UK) Ltd., PGR2015-00017, Paper 8, 6–7
`(PTAB Dec. 22, 2015).
`To satisfy the written-description requirement under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(a), the specification must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the
`art that the inventor had possession” of the claimed invention as of the filing
`date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). An adequate description does not require any
`particular form of disclosure or that the specification recite the claimed
`invention in haec verba, but must do more than render the claimed invention
`obvious. Id. at 1352.
`
`1. Claim 1
`Petitioner asserts the following limitations in claim 1 lack written-
`description support in the Specification: “a visualization window . . . that
`provides unobstructed visualization” and “an intermediate wall extending
`perpendicularly from the downwardly extending material to partition the
`first channel from the second channel.” Pet. 8, 41–46. Because, as described
`below, we do not agree with Petitioner’s contentions, we conclude that the
`language of claim 1 is adequately supported by the Specification and
`therefore by the applications to which the ’750 patent claims benefit of an
`earlier filing date.
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`a. “unobstructed visualization”
`Petitioner recognizes that the Specification “refers to ‘targeting and
`visualization’ and ‘ongoing monitoring’ of the wound site” but asserts such
`disclosure is insufficient to support a claim to “unobstructed visualization”
`because “[o]ne can target, visualize, or monitor even if the view is in some
`way obstructed.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 98). Patent Owner responds that
`Petitioner “gives undue emphasis on the word ‘unobstructed’ as if that
`adjective requires specific structures (or lack thereof), when in reality it
`merely emphasizes that the user must be able to see the wound through the
`window.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 54).
`As noted above, the Specification describes the “viewing window
`1522” as a structure that “permits targeting and visualization of the wound
`site” and that is “at least partially transparent.” Ex. 1001, 24:65–25:11.
`Additionally, a series of apertures leave open space below the visualization
`window. Id. at Fig. 15B, 25:3–6. The viewing window and open space are
`consistent with Petitioner’s construction of the term, which requires an
`unblocked view with no intermediate elements. See supra at 9. Accordingly,
`we conclude that the Specification supports a claim to a “visualization
`window . . . that provides unobstructed visualization.”
`b. “an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly from the downwardly
`extending material to partition the first channel from the second channel.”
`Petitioner argues that the Specification does not support claim 1’s
`language requiring “an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly from the
`downwardly extending material to partition the first channel from the second
`channel.” According to Petitioner, “the downwardly extending material from
`the upper layer 1510 does not extend straight down; it is curved” and,
`“[t]herefore, it is not possible for the intermediate wall 1514 to extend
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`perpendicularly from the downwardly extending material, which forms the
`side walls.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 15C; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 106‒107). Patent
`Owner responds that the upper layer depicted in Figure 15C has “straight,
`vertical portions . . . from which the intermediate layer extends across the
`width of the bridge.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 15C; Ex. 2001
`¶ 62). Patent Owner argues further that even if the figures did not depict an
`intermediate layer extending at precisely ninety degrees, the exact angle is
`“irrelevant to the design of the device or its performance, particularly when
`the materials used are pliable.” Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).
`We agree with Patent Owner. Although no textual description
`indicates the intermediate layer extends at precisely ninety degrees,
`Figure 15C depicts the intermediate layer 1514 extending perpendicularly
`from the sides formed from the downwardly extending portion of the upper
`layer 1510. Ex. 1001, Fig. 15C. We therefore conclude that the Specification
`supports a claim to “an intermediate wall extending perpendicularly from the
`downwardly extending material to partition the first channel from the second
`channel.”
`
`2. Claim 18
`Petitioner asserts the following limitations in claim 18 lack written-
`description support in the Specification: “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.” Pet. 7, 16–37. Because, as described below, we do not
`agree with Petitioner’s contentions, we conclude that the language of
`claim 18 is adequately supported by the Specification, and therefore by the
`applications to which the ’750 patent claims benefit of an earlier filing date.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`identify the “bridge 1502” as relating to the connection portion, and further
`that such a person would identify only the “lower channel layer 1516” as the
`claimed connection portion, because only the lower channel layer “could
`create a ‘fluid communication’ between the fluid inlet (the ‘aperture 1526’)
`and the fluid outlet (the ‘connector 1504’).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:7–
`18, 25:49–56; Ex. 1010 ¶ 68). Petitioner’s identification of the lower channel
`layer (or lower portion of the bridge) as the claimed connection portion leads
`to several arguments regarding lack of written-description support. Because
`the “viewing window 1522” described in the Specification is contained in
`the upper portion of the bridge (not the lower channel layer), Petitioner
`argues that the described connection portion does not include an inspection
`portion. Pet. 30–32. In that same way, Petitioner argues that the
`Specification does not describe a “duct wall comprising an inspection
`portion” because the only “duct wall” could be in the lower portion of the
`bridge, which creates a fluid connection from inlet to outlet. Pet. 33–34.
`Finally, Petitioner relies on the same understanding of the connection
`portion to argue that the described duct wall could not include “a partition
`wall extending at least partially” from the duct wall. Pet. 35–36.
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s view of the claimed “connection
`portion,” arguing that the term reads on the entire “assembled bridge 1502”
`described in the Specification. Prelim. Resp. 42–44. We conclude that Patent
`Owner has the more persuasive view of the Specification and claim
`language.
`Most significantly, the claim states that the connection portion is
`“adapted to . . . provide a fluid communication between said fluid inlet and
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`said fluid outlet.” The claim does not limit the connection portion to provide
`only that fluid communication, and therefore we have no reason to conclude
`that the connection portion must not include any other structures. In that
`regard, we agree with Patent Owner that the connection portion may include
`structures beyond the recited elements. See id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 2001
`¶ 79); cf. AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1244‒45
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When a claim uses an ‘open’ transition phrase, its scope
`may cover devices that employ additional, unrecited elements.”; “[T]he
`word ‘comprising’ is an open transition phrase.”). The Specification
`describes that the “bridge 1502” is a structure with a proximal end and a
`distal end and that is made from layers arranged to convey fluids between
`the ends. Ex. 1001, 22:7–36. We conclude that description supports that the
`bridge is a structure consistent with the plain and ordinary usage of the term
`“connection portion.”
`Patent Owner also points out that claim 18 requires the connection
`portion include a “duct wall at least partially defining a connection duct”
`from the fluid inlet to outlet, and that limiting the connection portion to the
`“lower channel layer 1516” as Petitioner seeks would effectively read the
`“connection duct” out of the claim. Prelim. Resp. at 44 (citing Ex. 2001
`¶ 80); see Pet. 27. We agree with Patent Owner that the claimed connection
`portion is not limited to the “lower channel layer 1516” and that the claim
`cannot be interpreted such that the connection portion is synonymous with
`the connection duct. Under Patent Owner’s view, the connection portion
`reads on the entire assembled bridge and therefore includes the entire “upper
`layer 1510.” See Prelim. Resp. 42–43. We conclude that view is consistent
`with the Specification, which describes the upper layer 1510 as a single
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`structure covering the entire bridge (i.e., the claimed connection portion).
`Ex. 1001, 22:10–14, 23:11–13, Fig. 15C. Petitioner does not adequately
`justify dividing the upper layer into regions and excluding from the claimed
`“connection portion” all but the region used to form the duct wall.
`The foregoing understanding of the connection portion resolves each
`of the written-description challenges to claim 18 raised by Petitioner. The
`parties do not dispute that the described “viewing window 1522” is
`contained within the upper layer. Pet. 31; Prelim. Resp. 46. As discussed
`above, we read the connection portion as including the entire upper layer.
`Thus, we conclude that the Specification describes a “connection portion
`comprising an inspection portion.”
`Similarly, the parties do not dispute that a portion of the upper layer
`1510 forms a “duct wall at least partially defining a connection duct” from
`the fluid inlet to fluid outlet. See Pet. 33 (identifying “the sides of the upper
`layer”); Prelim. Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 90–91). Although Petitioner
`takes the view that the “duct wall” includes only the portion of the upper
`layer relevant to the duct allowing flow from the fluid inlet to outlet and
`therefore does not include the viewing window (Pet. 33–34), we conclude
`otherwise. The Specification discloses that the “upper layer 1510 may
`comprise additional material extending downward, preferably at least of the
`thickness of the bridge 1502.” Ex. 1001, 23:11–13. It discloses that the
`upper layer is a single structure attached to the lower layer and intermediate
`layer and that such attachment forms a duct at least partially from the upper
`layer. Id. at 22:27–36, 23:13–23, Fig. 15C. We conclude that, understanding
`the claimed duct wall as the “upper layer 1510” described in the
`Specification, the duct wall comprises the inspection portion as claimed.
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`Finally, that same understanding of the duct wall—that the
`Specification describes the “upper layer 1510” as the claimed “duct wall”—
`leads to the conclusion that the “intermediate layer 1514” is within the
`connection portion and acts as a partition wall extending at least partially
`from the duct wall, as claimed. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 15C; Prelim. Resp. 50
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 94–95). The claim language does not require that the
`partition wall divides the claimed duct into particular sections. Rather,
`applying Petitioner’s proposed construction (see supra at 9), the claim
`requires that the connection portion include “an interior dividing wall” that
`extends at least partially from the duct wall. Because the intermediate layer
`described in the Specification does serve as an interior dividing wall—
`dividing the connection portion into two ducts—and does extend
`(perpendicularly) from the duct wall, the Specification indicates that the
`inventors were in possession of the claimed invention.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated that claim 1 or 18 of the ’503 patent is entitled to an effective
`filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Because Petitioner addressed only
`those independent claims, Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that
`any challenged claim of the ’750 patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file
`provisions of the AIA and, thus, Petitioner fails to show any challenged
`claim is eligible for post-grant review.
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Petition for post-
`grant review is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00035
`Patent 9,642,750 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Mitchell A. Katz
`Richard W. Miller
`E. Jonas Jarvholm
`BALLARD SPAHR LLP
`katzma@ballardspahr.com
`millerrw@ballardspahr.com
`javholmj@ballardspahr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christy G. Lea
`Joseph R. Re
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2cgl@knobbe.com
`2jrr@knobbe.com
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
