Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-1450
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. PGR2020-
`00051.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 12, 2023
`______________________
`
`MICHAEL N. RADER, Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC, New
`York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by EMMA
`L. FRANK, NATHAN R. SPEED, Boston, MA.
`
` JASON MITCHELL SHAPIRO, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wil-
`mington, DE, argued for appellee. Also represented by
`MARK JAMES DEBOY, Edell Shapiro and Finnan,
`Gaithersburg, MD.
` ______________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`2
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC. v.
` YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.
`
`Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`BlueCatBio MA Inc. (“BlueCat”) appeals from a final
`written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that
`claims 1, 3−5, 7, 10−12, and 14−20 of U.S. Patent
`10,338,063 had not been shown to have been unpatentable
`as anticipated or rendered obvious in view of the asserted
`prior art. BlueCatBio MA Inc. v. Yantai AusBio Lab’ys Co.,
`No. PGR2020-00051, 2021 WL 6338298 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9,
`2021) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`This appeal pertains to a post-grant review (“PGR”) in
`
`which BlueCat filed a petition challenging various claims
`of the ’063 patent directed to a centrifuge for cleaning reac-
`tion vessels. Representative claim 1 is presented below:
`1. A centrifuge for cleaning a reaction vessel
`unit that includes at least one opening, com-
`prising:
`a housing including a cylindrical inner sur-
`face and a drain;
`a rotor disposed within the housing and in-
`cluding an outmost surface, the rotor being
`configured to hold the reaction vessel unit
`with its at least one opening directed out-
`wardly;
`a motor for rotating the rotor around a rota-
`tion axis in a first rotational direction to cause
`liquid from the reaction vessel to be expelled
`from the at least one opening onto the inner
`surface of the housing;
`wherein a gap is provided between the inner
`surface of the housing and the outmost
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC. v.
`YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.
`
`3
`
`surface of the rotor, a size of the gap being
`such that by rotating the rotor a wind is gen-
`erated which drives the expelled liquid on the
`inner surface of the housing to the drain; and
`wherein a size of the gap is not less than 0.3
`mm.
`’063 patent, col. 23 l. 64–col. 24 l. 14 (emphasis added).
`
`Independent claim 12 recites a method of cleaning a re-
`action vessel with a centrifuge similar to that recited in
`claim 1, wherein a generated wind drives the expelled liq-
`uid on the inner housing surface to the drain. Id. col. 24 l.
`60–col. 25 l. 12.
`
`BlueCat petitioned for PGR, raising grounds of invalid-
`ity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in view of the public use
`of a centrifuge known as the GyroWasher. Like the
`claimed centrifuge, the GyroWasher comprises a rotor that
`generates a wind that can drive at least some liquid off the
`inner housing surface to a drain. The Board concluded,
`however, that BlueCat had not met its burden to establish
`unpatentability of the challenged claims because it had not
`shown that the GyroWasher’s wind drove all or nearly all
`of the liquid on the inner housing surface to the drain. De-
`cision at *21–22.
`jurisdiction under
` We have
`BlueCat appealed.
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).
`DISCUSSION
`We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
`re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the
`Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re
`Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding
`is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind
`might accept the evidence as adequate to support the find-
`ing. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
`BlueCat raises one issue on appeal: whether the Board
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`4
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC. v.
` YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.
`
`erred in construing “the expelled liquid on the inner sur-
`face of the housing” to mean “all or nearly all of the liquid”
`on the housing’s inner surface. Claim construction is a
`question of law that we review de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS
`Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of
`a patent define the invention[,] which the patentee is enti-
`tled . . . to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
`Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115
`(Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[W]e look to the
`words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of
`the patented invention.”).
`We begin with the language of the claims. The parties
`agree that “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the
`housing” driven to the drain refers to a claim limitation
`that recites that rotating the rotor causes “liquid from the
`reaction vessel to be expelled . . . onto the inner surface of
`the housing.” Given that the claim language does not ex-
`pressly contemplate that the wind drive merely a portion
`of “the expelled liquid” off the inner housing surface to the
`drain, we find that the claims support a construction that
`includes the wind driving all of the expelled liquid from the
`inner housing surface to the drain. The parties do not seem
`to disagree on this particular point. Some dependent
`claims, however, describe liquid that may remain on the
`inner housing following the initial wind generation step.
`The claims thus encompass situations in which liquid re-
`mains on the inner housing following wind generation. The
`question becomes: how much liquid may remain?
`Dependent claims 7 and 17 contemplate “a liquid film”
`or “a liquid” that the parties agreed is “residual liquid,” De-
`cision at *7, which remains on the inner housing, to the
`rear of the drain. Notably, these dependent claims suggest
`only that there is residual liquid or a liquid film near the
`drain. They do not indicate that there is any liquid that
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC. v.
`YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.
`
`5
`
`remains splattered across the whole of the inner housing
`surface. Rather, leaving behind a “liquid film” or “residual
`liquid” near the drain suggests that nearly all of the liquid
`has otherwise been driven off the inner housing. Thus, in
`view of the language of the claims themselves, we agree
`with the Board’s conclusion that “all or nearly all of the ex-
`pelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” is an ap-
`propriate construction of “the expelled liquid on the inner
`surface of the housing” that is driven to the drain by the
`wind.
`BlueCat suggests that such a claim construction im-
`properly imports a very high level of wind-efficacy from a
`preferred embodiment. We disagree, as this claim con-
`struction arises from the claim language itself. That it is
`consistent with an embodiment or other disclosures in the
`specification does not mean it improperly imports limita-
`tions from the specification. Rather, it indicates that the
`construction is correct. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“The
`construction that stays true to the claim language and
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
`invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”).
`Indeed, the specification confirms that even if any “re-
`sidual liquid remain[s] in the housing,” the “main part” of
`the liquid will not only be off the housing but down the
`drain. See ’063 patent, col. 3 ll. 41−45. This is consistent
`with requiring that all or nearly all of the expelled liquid
`be driven off the inner housing to the drain. The specifica-
`tion also makes repeated mention of removing liquid from
`the inner housing to avoid cross-contamination between re-
`action vessels. See id. col. 3 ll. 43−45 (removing the “main
`part” of the expelled liquid “decreases the risk of any cross-
`contamination enormously”); id. col. 3 ll. 58−66 (describing
`“withdraw[ing] completely all liquid . . . from the interior
`of the housing,” how “[t]his fluid is regarded as contami-
`nating material,” and how “[a]s this contaminating mate-
`rial can be completely [] withdrawn, there is no danger of
`contamination”). Each of these disclosures naturally aligns
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1450 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`6
`
`BLUECATBIO MA INC. v.
` YANTAI AUSBIO LABORATORIES CO., LTD.
`
`with the adopted “all or nearly all” construction.
`BlueCat contends that the “all or nearly all” construc-
`tion is indefinite. However, this constitutes a substantial
`new argument on appeal. BlueCat’s contentions regarding
`indefiniteness were thus forfeited. See Microsoft Corp. v.
`Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`The Board’s finding that the GyroWasher does not
`demonstrate wind driving all or nearly all of the liquid ex-
`pelled on the inner surface of the housing is a fact finding
`that we review for substantial evidence. Gartside, 203 F.3d
`at 1316. The Board evaluated testimony from both expert
`and fact witnesses, as well as experimental results and vid-
`eographic evidence to determine that the GyroWasher did
`not produce a wind that drove a sufficient amount of ex-
`pelled liquid on the inner housing surface to the drain to
`render the challenged claims invalid. In particular, the
`Board looked to evidence that showed a notable amount of
`liquid remaining on the GyroWasher’s inner housing sur-
`face following centrifugation, as well as an experiment
`demonstrating that as much as 27% of liquid expelled from
`a reaction vessel did not make it into the GyroWasher’s
`drain following centrifugation. Decision at *15–17, *19–20.
`We find the Board’s conclusion that BlueCat failed to es-
`tablish that the wind generated by the GyroWasher drove
`all or nearly all of the expelled liquid on the inner housing
`surface to the drain was supported by substantial evidence.
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered BlueCat’s remaining arguments
`and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing rea-
`sons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision holding
`that claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10–12, and 14–20 of the ’063 patent
`were not shown to have been unpatentable in view of the
`asserted prior art.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`