Ex Parte 7,780,794 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

95002085 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
95/002,085 08/17/2012
25181 7590 05/09/2016
FOLEY HOAG, LLP
PA TENT GROUP, SEAPORT WEST
155 SEAPORT BL VD
BOSTON, MA 02210-2600
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
7,780,794 B2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TMF-00006 6797
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
EXCELSIOR MEDICAL CORPORATION
Requester
v.
IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION
Patent Owner and Appellant
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Technology Center 3900
Before MARK NAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
RAEL YNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Patent Owner I vera Medical Corporation ("Patent Owner") appeals
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (pre-AIA) the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24. 1 Third-Party Requester Excelsior
Medical Corporation (hereinafter "Requester") urges that the Examiner's
decision must be affirmed. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b)
and 315(a) (pre-AIA). We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims
12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Requester requested inter partes reexamination of United States
Patent 7,780,794 Cl (hereinafter the "'794 Patent") on August 17, 2012.
The '794 Patent was subject to ex parte reexamination (Control 90/009,951,
filed on October 3, 2011 ), which resulted in the patentability of original
claims 1-11 and 13-24 being confirmed and the patentability of claim 12
being confirmed as a result of an amendment. (See Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate Issued under 35 U.S.C. § 307, issued on June 26, 2012.) U.S.
Patent No. 7,985,302 Cl (hereinafter the "'302 Patent"), which was filed as
a continuation of the '794 Patent, was subject to ex parte reexamination
(Control 90/009,950, filed on October 3, 2011), which resulted in the
patentability of original claims 1-6 and 8-1 7 being confirmed, the
patentability of claim 7 being confirmed as a result of an amendment, and
1 See Patent Owner's Appeal Brief 1 (filed August 5, 2014) (hereinafter
"App. Br.") Examiner's Answer (mailed October 24, 2014) (hereinafter
"Ans."); Right of Appeal Notice (mailed April 4, 2014) (hereinafter
"RAN.").
2 See Requester's Respondent Brief (filed September 5, 2014) (hereinafter
"Resp 't Br.").
2
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
new claims 18-25 being added and determined to be patentable. (See Ex
Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued under 35 U.S.C. § 307, issued on
May 22, 2012.) The '302 Patent is the subject of inter partes reexamination
Control No. 95/002,086, and also on appeal to PTAB (Appeal No.
2015-004765). U.S. Patent No. 8,206,514 B2, which was filed as a
continuation of the '302 Patent, is the subject of inter partes reexamination
Control No. 95/002,087, and also on appeal to PTAB (Appeal No.
2015-003760). (See App. Br. 1.) Decisions in Appeal No. 2015-004765 and
Appeal No. 2015-003760 are being mailed concurrently herewith.
We heard oral argument from Patent Owner in the three above
mentioned appeals concurrently on July 8, 2015, a transcript of which was
entered into the electronic record on July 30, 2015.
We are also informed that the '794 Patent is related to or the subject
of the following proceedings styled: Ivera Medical Corp. v. Excelsior
Medical Corp.; Ivera Medical Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.; and Ivera Medical
Corp. v. Catheter Connections, Inc. (App. Br. 1.) We have been informed
that in a consolidated order dated April 29, 2014, the District Court of the
Southern District of California granted Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment of Invalidity of claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 of the '794
Patent, claims 1-21 of the '302 Patent, and claims 1-8, 11-18, 20-25, and 27
of the '514 Patent over prior art that is at issue in the current reexamination.
(App. Br., Ex. 25, at 3--4, and 15.)
We observe that the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit reversed
the District Court's entry of summary judgment of invalidity and remanded
3
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
the proceeding to the District Court. Ivera Medical Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,
801 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The '794 Patent
The '794 Patent relates to a cleaning device, system, and method,
where the cleaning device includes a cap having an inner cavity and an
opening to receive a site of a medical device, the cap also including a
compressible material containing a cleaning agent. (Col. 2, 11. 9--19.) The
'794 Patent describes that the cap 10 includes a housing 4 having internal
threads 3, the internal threads being "sized and arranged to accommodate
luer threads, i.e. standardized male threads" and further describes that when
the cap is kept secured to a medical implement, "the cleaning agent in cap 10
will evaporate over time." (Col. 4, 11. 56-60, col. 6, 11. 7-10; Figs. 1-4.) In
some embodiments, the cap may either be configured with a threaded ring
106 that is adapted to receive the site of a medical implement, which
threaded ring may also include or create a small vent aperture or opening to
allow evaporation of a cleaning agent in the cap. (Col. 6, 11. 26-43; Figs.
5-11.) The '794 Patent discloses also that in an alternative embodiment,
holes 164 can be included in the cleaning device to promote evaporation of
the cleaning agent. (Col. 8, 11. 11-21; Fig. 14.)
Claims 20 and 23, which are illustrative of the appealed subject
matter, read as follows:
20. A cleaning device for a medical implement, the
cleaning device comprising:
a cap having an opening to an inner cavity, the opening
for receiving a site of the medical implement;
4
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
a threading at a periphery of the opening to the inner
cavity;
a compressible cleaning material that contains a cleaning
agent, the compressible cleaning material at least partially
secured in the inner cavity and adapted to swab and clean the
site of the medical implement with the cleaning agent;
at least one second opening proximate the opening to the
inner cavity to allow evaporation of the cleaning agent from the
inner cavity and to inhibit a vacuum in the cap when the
opening receives the site of the medical implement; and
a removable seal attached to the cap at the opening to
cover the opening and the second opening, and to maintain the
compressible cleaning material and cleaning agent within the
inner cavity prior to receipt of the site of the medical
implement.
23. A cleaning device for a medical implement, the
cleaning device comprising:
a cap having an opening to an inner cavity, the opening
being sized for receiving a site of the medical implement;
a compressible cleaning material that contains a cleaning
agent, the compressible cleaning material at least partially
secured in the inner cavity and adapted to swab and clean the
site of the medical implement with the cleaning agent;
means for venting the cleaning agent from the
compressible cleaning material and the inner cavity, the means
for venting being created between the cap and the site of the
medical implement when the site of the medical implement is
received in the opening of the cap; and
a removable seal attached to the cap at the opening to
cover the opening and to maintain the compressible cleaning
material and cleaning agent within the inner cavity prior to
receipt of the site of the medical implement.
(App. Br. Claims App'x.)
5
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Patent Owner contests the Examiner's decision to reject the claims as
follows:
I. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over White (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,425,
issued September 7, 1993) in view of Hoang (US
2007/0112333 Al, filed November 17, 2005, published
May 17, 2007) as evidenced by the Rice Declaration
(Declaration of James G. Rice, Ph.D. in Support of Inter
Partes Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
7,780,794, executed on August 16, 2012) (Ground l);
II. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 8,167,847 B2,
issued May 1, 2012) (Ground 2);
III. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of White (Ground
4);
IV. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hoang as evidenced by the Rice
Declaration (Ground 5);
V. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tennican (WO 2007 /137056 A2,
published November 29, 2007) in view of ISO Luer
(International Standard, Conical fittings with 6% (Luer)
taper for syringes, needles and certain other medical
6
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
equipment - Part 2: Lock fittings, Reference number ISO
594-2: 1998(E) (International Organization for
Standardization) (1998)) (Ground 7);
VI. Claims 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoang in
view of Buchman (U.S. Patent No. 7,922,701 B2, issued
April 12, 2011) (Ground 8); and
VII. Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hoang in view of Chin-Loy (U.S. Patent No. 5,954,957,
issued September 21, 1999) (Ground 9).
Claim Interpretation
"Means for venting"
Patent Owner contends that the Examiner did not properly interpret
the phrase "means for venting" recited in claim 23, because the Examiner
did not identify the corresponding structure in the Specification of the '794
Patent, which is required under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph (pre-AIA).
(App. Br. 5.)
Specifically, Patent Owner takes issue with the Examiner's position
that the '794 Patent describes that a corresponding structure to the "means
for venting" set forth in claim 23 includes a cap having standardized luer
threads. (RAN 26-27, citing column 4, lines 54---60, column 6, lines 3-10
and Figures 1--4.)
7
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Patent Owner contends that the structure corresponding to the
"venting" function recited in the claim requires "( 1) an aperture or opening
that is formed between the cap and a ring disposed within the cap (6:33-48),
(2) holes formed in the cap (8: 11-21 ), and (3) equivalents thereof." (App.
Br. 3.) We observe that the Federal Circuit identified two embodiments in
the '794 Patent corresponding to openings that permit venting of the interior
of the cap: a threaded ring that can create a small vent aperture or opening
relative to the inner wall of the cap (citing '794 Patent, Fig. 6 and col. 6, 11.
37--43); and holes that are formed in the housing of the cap (citing '794
Patent, Fig. 14 and col. 8, 11. 15-17). Ivera Medical Corp., 801 F.3d at
1337-38.
As reproduced above, claim 23 recites: "means for venting the
cleaning agent from the compressible cleaning material and the inner cavity,
the means for venting being created between the cap and the site of the
medical implement when the site of the medical implement is received in the
opening of the cap." Claim 23 recites the phrase "means for venting," which
creates a presumption that the patentee intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112,
6th para. (pre-AIA). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (reaffirming that the use of the word "means" as creating a
presumption that patentee intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph,
but overruling the characterization of that presumption as "strong"). We
acknowledge that claim 23 further recites that the location where the "means
for venting" is "created" is between the cap and the site of the medical
implement. However, this recitation only specifies the location where the
8
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
"means for venting" is "created" and does not impart sufficient structure to
the claim to remove it from being subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph.
As a result, we tum to the Specification of the '794 Patent in order to
determine the corresponding structure to the recited "means for venting." In
re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[I]f one employs
means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the
specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that
language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the
applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.")
The '794 Patent uses the term "vent" in two places in the
Specification, referenced above by both Patent Owner and the Federal
Circuit. Specifically, column 6, lines 33--48 of the '794 Patent describes an
embodiment of a cleaning device 100 where the cap 102 may include a
threaded ring 106 that fits into a groove 109 formed in the inside edge
surface of the cap 102 near the opening.
9
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Figure 6 of the '794 Patent illustrates this configuration and is
reproduced below:
108
102
107
~
107
106 104
105 105
Figure 6 is a cross-sectional view of an assembled cleaning device in
accordance with the '794 Patent. (Col. 3, 11. 19--20.) In addition to the
aspects of the cleaning device discussed above, Figure 6 includes threads
105 in the threaded ring 106, which are adapted to receive the medical
implement to be disinfected, a first cleaning material 107, a second cleaning
material 108, and seal 104. (Col. 6, 11. 26-32, 49--67.)
The '794 Patent discloses that "the threaded ring 106 may also include
or create with the cap wall a small vent aperture or opening to allow
evaporation of a cleaning agent in the cap 102." (Col. 6, 11. 40-43.) The
'794 Patent further discloses that the threaded ring 106 may be kept from
rotating with internal ribs or protrusions in cap 102 or groove 109, and may
be held in place by glue, welding, snap-fit, solvent boding, or any other
suitable mechanism. (Col. 6, 11. 43--48.) Thus, according to the '794 Patent,
10
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
the aperture or opening for venting is created between the outer edge of the
threaded ring 106 and the cap wall 102.
In an alternative embodiment, the '794 Patent, in column 8, lines 11-
21, discloses a housing 162, which include holes 164, which are further
described as "vent holes" that "promote evaporation of the cleaning agent,
particularly when the housing covers a site of a medical implement to be
disinfected." Figure 14 is illustrative and reproduced below:
164
162
0
160 -
Figure 14 depicts as cap of a cleaning device 160 including holes 164
in housing 162. (Col. 3, 11. 32-33; col. 8, 11. 15-21.) The '794 Patent
discloses that the location of the vent holes is variable and that the holes can
be sealed with a filter type membrane that allows drying but not the entry of
microorganisms or fluid. (Col. 8, 11. 17-21.)
With respect to the portions of the Specification identified by the
Examiner, the '794 Patent describes that the cap 10 includes a housing 4
having internal threads 3, the internal threads being "sized and arranged to
accommodate luer threads, i.e. standardized male threads" and further
11
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
describe that when the cap is kept secured to a medical implement, "the
cleaning agent in cap 10 will evaporate over time." (Col. 4, 11. 54---60, col. 6,
11. 3-10.) Thus, contrary to the Examiner's understanding (see RAN 26), the
'794 Patent, while specifying that the medical implement can include
standardized luer threads, does not state that the cap threading is a
standardized luer thread, but is merely configured to "accommodate" a
standardized luer thread.
Importantly, claim 20 recites a cleaning device having "at least one
second opening proximate the opening to the inner cavity to allow
evaporation of the cleaning agent from the inner cavity and to inhibit a
vacuum in the cap when the opening receives the site of the medical
implement." Claim 21 further recites that the "second opening is formed by
a gap in the threading." Thus, by disclosing that the threads of the cap are
sized and arranged to accommodate luer threads, the '794 Patent supports a
corresponding structure to the "means for venting" that includes gaps in the
threading. Patent Owner specifically claims gaps in the threads as providing
the evaporation function as well as for inhibiting a vacuum when the
medical implement is received in claim 21. Indeed, at oral argument, Patent
Owner agreed that a gap between threads is an additional structure
corresponding to the "means for venting" recited in claim 23. 3
3 JUDGE ROBERTSON: So ifI can interrupt you, too, because we
discussed the claims, but one of the claims, as you noted, Claim 23 is a
means-plus-function claim and there's some discussion as to what the
corresponding structure and the specification would be in that regard from
your brief, and you specifically reference column 6, you know, around line
41, and then column 8 in respect to Figure 14.
12
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
As pointed out above, the '794 Patent generally discloses that the
cleaning agent will evaporate over time, similar to the embodiments
discussed above where the "vent" function is disclosed as being for
"allowing" or "promoting" evaporation of a cleaning agent. (Col. 6, 11. 3-10,
40-43 and col. 8, 11. 15-21.) Further, with the exception of the claims, the
'794 Patent does not describe "venting" specifically for the purpose of
inhibiting a vacuum or inhibiting a buildup of pressure as the cap is being
secured to the medical implement.
Thus, we interpret the corresponding structure for the "means for
venting" disclosed in claim 23 as space between the received site of the
medical implement and the cap, including: (1) an aperture or opening that is
formed between the cap and a ring disposed within the cap; (2) holes formed
in the cap; (3) gaps in the threading between the cap and the medical
There's also some discussion in the top of column 6 regarding what
you were just talking about now is that -- and I don't mean to put words in
your mouth, but the threads -- what I'm understanding you to say is that the
threads on the cap can accommodate a luer thread, but they're not
necessarily the same type of mating threads that you would expect from the
actual medical device itself for it to be jointed together, so -- and thus
allowing for threading.
So isn't that -- excuse me -- allowing for venting. So isn't that also a
means falling within Claim 23?
MR. EGBERT: Yes. Yes, I would agree with that.
JUDGE ROBERTSON: Okay.
MR. EGBERT: So there are at least those different examples that we
would consider to be venting.
(Oral Hr'g. Tr. 6. 1. 21-page 7, 1. 13.)
13
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
implement; and ( 4) equivalents thereof, such that vapors may escape from
that space.
We observe that our interpretation adds an additional structural
component to the Federal Circuit's understanding of the claim term.
However, in view of the above discussion, we view this interpretation as
reasonable. Unlike a district court in patent litigation, 4 "the PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In
re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F .3d 1318, 1326
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (acknowledging that the Board is not generally bound by a
prior judicial construction of a claim term).
Claim 23
Rejections I and IV (Grounds 1 and 5) White, Hoang, and Rice
Declaration
Because Rejections I and IV rely on similar combinations of
references, positions, and arguments, we address these two rejections
together. (RAN 3-5, 11; App. Br. 5-11; Resp't Br. 11-13.)
4 See, e.g., In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that, relative to district court litigation, reexamination is
conducted under different standards including standard of proof, absence of
a presumption of validity, and claim construction).
14
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
ISSUE
The dispositive issue with respect to these rejections is:
Does Hoang alone or in combination with White disclose or render
obvious a "means for venting" recited in claim 23?
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that White discloses an antiseptic coupler system
for a catheter assembly including an outer protective cap containing a
sponge material saturated with antiseptic to contact a self-sealing portion of
a male connector of the catheter assembly. (RAN 3.)
White discloses a catheter assembly with an outer protective cap
containing an absorbent material saturated with an antiseptic. (Col. 2,
11. 59-64.)
15
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Figure 7 of White is reproduced below:
18
LlJ f!g. I
Figure 7 depicts an embodiment of the capped catheter assembly
including outer protective cap 78 containing sponge 80 and internal threads
7 6 which are received by externally threaded shoulder 7 4 of distal member
70. (Col. 7, 11. 23-29.) Distal member 70 also includes finger grip 72. (Col.
7, 11. 23-24.) White discloses that the outer protective cap 78 is spaced from
proximal member or injection cap 82 "to permit antiseptic to bathe the
exterior surfaces of distal member 70, proximal member 82, and self-sealing
septum 84." (Col. 7, 11. 29-32.) White discloses that as a result of this
configuration, self-sealing septum 84, proximal member 82, and the
16
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
interconnection between proximal member 82 and distal member are
maintained in aseptic conditions. (Col. 7, 11. 32-35.)
The Examiner found that the inner surface of the cap is spaced from
the outer surface of the connector so that the outer surface of the connector
is bathed with antiseptic when the cap is in place and the sponge contacts the
connector portion. (RAN 3--4.) The Examiner further found that the cap of
White is provided with threads to interact with the threads of the connector,
where the connection formed is a luer connection. (RAN 4.)
The Examiner found that Hoang discloses an antiseptic capping
device for covering an access portion of a catheter access valve such as
embodied by Figure IOB. (RAN 4.)
Hoang discloses a cap device for antiseptically maintaining a patient
fluid line access valve. (Hoang i-f 5.) An embodiment of a cap device
disclosed in Hoang is depicted in Figure 1 OB reproduced below:
78~ 78a
Figure 1 OB depicts a cap device 78 with lid 78a and pad 80. (Hoang
i-f 43.) The pad 80 may be a wet pad and as such the cap device 78 may be
used to clean medical devices by twisting the cap when the cap is placed on
17
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
the device or removed, or alternatively, by twisting in alternate directions for
a desired amount of time. (Hoang i-f 44.)
The Examiner stated that "Hoang does not disclose any sort of venting
nor does Hoang disclose a second opening or aperture to the interior of the
cap device other than the single opening covered by the lid 78a." (RAN 4.)
The Examiner found that neither White nor Hoang explicitly
acknowledge a means for venting the cleaning agent as claimed, but that
"neither reference discloses means to seal the connection between the
catheter connection and the cap means preventing such venting." (RAN 5.)
The Examiner relied on the Rice Declaration (Declaration of James G. Rice,
Ph.D., executed on August 16, 2012) for the principle that a threaded
connection does not provide an airtight connection absent some type of
sealing component such as an 0-ring or gasket. (RAN 5.) The Examiner
found that because White and Hoang were both silent either as to the
presence of a sealing component or sealed connection, "it would have been
intrinsic to the configuration that some venting would occur through that
threaded connection thereby meeting all limitations of claim 23." (RAN 5.)
Patent Owner contends that there is no teaching in White or Hoang
that a threaded connections allow venting. (App. Br. 6.) Patent Owner
contends that the Rice Declaration fails to set forth any evidentiary or
analytical support that the threads, as disclosed in White or Hoang, would be
manufactured with significant clearance. (App. Br. 6-8.) Patent Owner
cites to additional evidence that allegedly shows that threaded connections
18
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
form a fluid tight seal without the use of a separate sealing component. 5
(App. Br. 8-10.) Patent Owner contends that White and Hoang fail to teach
or suggest that the threaded connection between the cap and a medical
implement will necessarily vent and that one skilled in the art would have
understood that the threaded connections in White and Hoang were fluid
tight. (App. Br. 10-11.) Patent Owner contends that the space between the
cap 78 and the medical implement 82 disclosed in White (see figure 7) is an
internal gap that is formed after the cap is threaded onto the distal member,
which does not vent as recited in the claims. (Reb. Br. 14.)
Requester argues that the Rice Declaration is anchored in the
disclosure of Hoang and specifically, that the cap disclosed therein is made
of polyethylene in a molding process, which Dr. Rice, relying on his
mechanical engineering experience, stated would include clearances and
would not provide an airtight seal. (Resp't Br. 11-12.) Requester contends
that Hoang implicitly discloses venting and White expressly teaches venting.
(Resp't Br. 12-13.)
As discussed above, although the '794 Patent discloses gaps in
threading as a structure corresponding to a "means for venting," we are not
persuaded that the threading disclosed in Hoang or White between the caps
5 We observe that there is a disagreement as to whether certain evidence
offered by Patent Owner, namely Exhibits 19-22 attached to Patent Owner's
Appeal Brief has been entered into the record. (Resp't Br. 4--5; PO Rebuttal
Brief, filed November 24, 2014, "Reb. Br." 4--5.) The Examiner indicated
that some evidence had not been entered, but did not specifically comment
on whether the disputed evidence had been entered. (See RAN 20-24.)
Because we resolve this appeal in Patent Owner's favor based on evidence
that was clearly made of record, we find it unnecessary to discuss the
additional evidence in dispute.
19
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
and the medical implements disclosed in each reference necessarily would
contain such gaps and allow for venting as required by claim 23. As
discussed above, the Examiner found that both Hoang and White are silent
as to the aspect of venting. The Examiner relied on the Rice Declaration for
this missing teaching in Hoang or White.
However, the Rice Declaration does not provide sufficient factual
support for the statements made therein, and there is evidence in the record
that directly contradicts such statements. Although the Rice Declaration
discusses an increase in internal pressure in the cap upon attachment of the
cap to the medical device to support the position that Hoang inherently
discloses an opening for venting, the Rice Declaration does not persuasively
evince that any internal pressure would be of such a degree that such
pressure necessarily would have vented to the atmosphere. (Rice Deel. i-f 7.)
In addition, the Rice Declaration states that the arrangement of threads in
Hoang inherently allows for some escape of fluid between the threads or at
the helical interface. (Rice Deel. i-fi-1 6-10.)
In contrast, Anderson, which is of record in this reexamination,
discloses that catheter connections
to catheter caps, which are used to seal the end of a catheter to
protect the sterility of the catheter and prevent fluid loss and/or
particle contamination, are most often made utilizing the
medical industry's standardized Luer taper fittings. These
fittings, which may either be male couplings or female
couplings, include a tapered end of standardized dimensions.
Coupling is made by the press-fit of mating parts. A threaded
lock-fit or other type of securing mechanism is commonly
utilized to ensure the integrity of the pressure fit of the Luer
fittings.
20
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
(Anderson, col. 1, 1. 59- col. 2, 1. 3.) In other words, the skilled artisan
would have understood that standard luer fittings generally are designed to
"prevent fluid loss," and thus would not have functioned properly if venting
was necessarily present in such a connection.
The Second Rice Declaration (Declaration of James G. Rice, executed
on February 1, 2013) states that in Figure IOB of Hoang, there are a limited
number of helical turns, an "unmistakable absence of thread tapering," and
that the ability of the cap to be twisted in two directions indicates a loose
connection. (Second Rice Deel. i-f 9). We are not persuaded that Hoang's
catheter cap necessarily includes gaps in the threading sufficient for venting.
The Second Rice Declaration does not explain why a person skilled in the art
would have relied on Figure 1 OB for details such as the structure of threads.
Nor does the Second Rice Declaration explain how Figure IOB
unmistakably shows a lack of tapering. Moreover, the statements in the
Second Rice Declaration merely point out the alleged differences between
the threading disclosed in Hoang and "the threading that would ordinarily be
associated with an interference fit." (Second Rice Deel. i-f 9.) As such, an
absence of these features is not conclusive that venting is necessarily present
in Hoang's device.
With respect to White, we disagree with Requester that White
discloses venting. Requester's position relies on White's Figure 7
embodiment, and the accompanying disclosure of a space between the outer
protective cap 78 and the proximal member 82 in order to "bathe the
exterior surfaces of distal member 70." (Resp't Br. 12-13, quoting White,
col. 7, 11. 29-32.) We disagree with Requester that White discloses a "means
21
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
for venting" as recited in the claims. That is, in describing distal member
70, White discloses that distal member 70 is provided with "externally"
threaded shoulder 7 4, which is adapted to receive internal threads 7 6 of
protective cap 78. (Col. 7, 11. 24--28.) We are of the opinion that when
White refers to bathing the "exterior surfaces of distal member 70," White is
referring to the exposed area of the distal member that is proximate to the
member 82 above the threads on shoulder 74, inside the inner cavity of cap
78. (See Fig. 7.) We disagree that this teaching in White describes venting
from the inner cavity.
As a result, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 as
obvious over White in view of Hoang, as evidenced by the Rice Declaration
and the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 as anticipated by Hoang as
evidenced by the Rice Declaration.
Rejections II and III (Grounds 2 and 4) Anderson or Anderson/White
Because Rejections II and III rely on similar references, positions, and
arguments, we address these two rejections together. (RAN 6-8, 9-10; App.
Br. 11-14; Resp't Br. 13.)
ISSUE
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejections is:
Does Anderson alone or in combination with White disclose or render
obvious a "means for venting" recited in claim 23?
22
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Anderson discloses an antiseptic cap having
a chamber containing an absorbent material such as a sponge, where a
portion of the interior surface of the cap may be formed with a set of threads
for mating with a catheter access site. (RAN 7 .) The Examiner found that:
"Anderson does not disclose the presence of any means [sic, for] sealing that
threaded connections thus it would have been intrinsic to the configuration
that some venting would occur through that threaded connection thereby
meeting all limitations of claim 23." (RAN 7.)
Anderson discloses an antiseptic cap that is attached to a catheter
lumen, which delivers antiseptic compositions or liquid to a lumen of the
catheter. (Col. 1, 11. 15-20.) Specifically, Anderson discloses a cap
assembly 80 having a cap 82 defining a chamber 84 containing an absorbent
material such as a sponge 86. (Col. 5, 11. 25-31.) The cap 82 has an interior
surface 87 "with a set of threads 88 for mating with a set of threads on the
access site 39." (Col. 5, 11. 31-33.)
Figure 5 of Anderson is reproduced below:
23
109
. 108
~~64
\.eo
e2
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Figure 5 is a perspective view assembly drawing of an antiseptic cap
equipped plunger. (Col. 3, 11. 26-27.) In addition to the above description
of the cap 82, Figure 5 depicts a housing 60 including a chamber 64 having
an open end 66, where the cap assembly 80 fits within chamber 64. (Col. 5,
11. 16-25; see Fig. 6.)
Anderson discloses that the threads 88 of the cap assembly "engage"
with the threads of the access site. (Col. 5, 11. 45--47, discussing operation of
the cap in connection with Figures 3 and 4.) Anderson discloses that when
the antiseptic cap assembly is docked to the catheter, the catheter is sealed to
block the ingress of pathogens and contaminants and the access site is
exposed to the antiseptic material in sponge 86. (Col. 5, 11. 54--57.)
Patent Owner contends that Anderson does not disclose venting
through the threads and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from Anderson that a fluid tight seal was formed by the threads.
(App. Br. 12-13.) Patent Owner reiterates the same arguments with respect
to White as addressed above with respect to the gap created being
completely internal to the protective cap. (App. Br. 14.)
Requester relies on Figure 3 of the provisional application that
matured into Anderson to show a space for venting as well as the same
arguments with respect to White as discussed above. (Resp 't Br. 13.)
We agree with Patent Owner that Anderson does not anticipate the
recited "means for venting" in claim 23 by merely disclosing that the cap
and the medical implement to be treated are joined via threads. Anderson
discloses that catheter connections to catheter caps are used to seal the end
of a catheter to protect the sterility of the catheter and prevent fluid loss
24
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
and/or particle contamination and are most often made utilizing the medical
industry's standardized Luer taper fittings. (Anderson, col. 1, 1. 59- col. 2,
1. 3. ). We have not been directed to sufficient evidence of record to support
the position that the above described threaded connection includes threads
that allow for venting.
With respect to Figure 3 of the provisional application, we observe, as
does Patent Owner, that this Figure is hand drawn. We note also that the
Examiner did not rely on Figure 3 to support the rejection. (RAN 7.) While
Requester indicates that Figure 3 can be relied upon for what it shows, there
is no indication that the Figure is drawn to any kind of scale or was intended
to show the presence of a gap. Indeed, the express disclosure of Anderson
of a seal formed by the threaded connection is evidence that there were no
gaps or vents intended by the drawing. Thus, we do not agree with
Requester's argument that Figure 3 of the provisional application may be
relied upon to show that Anderson discloses a means for venting as recited
in claim 2 3.
Requester relies on similar arguments with respect to White as
discussed above, which we did not find persuasive. We incorporate that
analysis here as well.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 23 as
anticipated by Anderson or obvious over Anderson in view of White.
25
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Rejection V (Ground 7) Tennican/ISO Luer
ISSUE
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Does Tennican in combination with ISO Luer render obvious a
"means for venting" recited in claim 23?
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Tennican discloses a device and method for
disinfecting surfaces of an intravascular port device. (RAN 13.) The
Examiner found that Tennican discloses a cap provided with a sponge
containing antiseptic solution. (RAN 13.) The Examiner found that
Tennican also discloses a threaded connection with a luer-type fitting of a
medical implement. (RAN 14.) The Examiner found that ISO Luer
discloses the tolerances of standard luer-type fittings identifying relative
dimensions that provide clearance between threads of interconnected luer
devices. (RAN 14.) The Examiner found that although Tennican does not
"explicitly acknowledge" the means for venting recited in the claims,
Tennican also does not disclose a means to seal the connection between the
luer connection and the cap means for preventing venting. (RAN 14.) As a
result, the Examiner concluded that in view of the disclosure in ISO Luer, an
airtight connection would not be formed resulting in some venting, which
would satisfy the "means for venting" recited in claim 23. (RAN 14.)
Tennican discloses an intravascular port access device including a
first component having a catheter and a second component that reversibly
attaches to the first component containing a disinfecting agent and an
26
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
applicator material. (i-f 6.) In one embodiment, Tennican discloses that the
second component can comprise a housing having an internal receiving port
which is threaded to thread onto a "LEUR[sic]-LOK®" type fitting. (i1i160-
61.)
ISO Luer discloses "requirements for conical lock fittings with a 6 %
(Luer) tape for use with hypodermic syringes and needles with certain other
apparatus for medical use, e.g. transfusion equipment." (Page 1, section
entitled "Scope.") ISO Luer discloses requirements for the fittings regarding
Liquid and Air Leakage, such that for liquid "there shall be no leakage
sufficient to form a falling drop" and for air, "there shall be no signs of
continued formation of air bubbles. Bubbles formed during the first 5
[seconds] shall be disregarded." (ISO Luer, p. 6, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.)
Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have relied on ISO Luer to modify threads on a cleaning cap. (App. Br. 15.)
Patent Owner argues that ISO Luer has been taken out of context, because it
relates to 6% luer lock fittings, and Tennican's cap is designed to mate with
a "LEUR[sic]-LOK®" fitting, which is a name and not a reference to the
ISO Luer standard. (App. Br. 15.) Patent Owner contends that Tennican's
cap does not have the features that would suggest modification with ISO
Luer. (App. Br. 15.) Patent Owner argues that the Examiner concedes that
Tennican does not teach venting and that ISO Luer was a standard
established to ensure consistent fluid-tight connections, and in fact teaches
away from venting. (App. Br. 16-17.)
Requester reiterates that ISO Luer discloses a clearance between
threading, which would allow for venting, and that there is nothing inventive
27
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
in choosing standardized luer threading, which would provide the recited
venting. (Resp't Br. 14.) According to Requester, ISO Luer discloses
threading with at least 0.035 millimeters of radial clearance and at least 0.3
millimeters of vertical clearance. (Request 73-75; see ISO Luer, Figs. 1 and
4; Table 1.)
We are not persuaded by the Examiner's and the Requester's reliance
on ISO Luer as evidence that spacing between threads would have allowed
for venting. Requester appears to read ISO Luer as providing standards for
threading between a medical implement that is a luer connector and female
threading adjacent to it, and also a luer lock connector connected to another
luer lock connector. (See Request 75-76.) However, we find no support for
concluding that, despite the presence of some clearance in standard leur
fittings that these standard connections would allow for venting in the
manner recited in the claims. We also agree with Patent Owner, that ISO
Luer appears to describe only fittings that are in the fluid path. (App. Br.
15-16.) That is, ISO Luer discloses that, to the extent that Tennican's
"LEUR[sic]-LOK®" type threading is a standard luer threading, there is an
expectation that the threading would be air and fluid-tight. (ISO Luer
Section 4.2.1, 4.2.2.) There is no indication in ISO Luer that the
requirements disclosed therein would apply to some other connection, such
as between an antiseptic cap and a medical implement. As a result, we agree
with Patent Owner that there is no indication that venting would occur even
if the concepts disclosed in ISO Luer were applied to Tennican. (App. Br.
17.)
28
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 23 as
obvious over Tennican and ISO Luer.
Rejection VI (Ground 8) Hoang and Buchman
The Examiner rejected claims 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 as obvious
over Hoang and Buchman. Independent claim 12 is directed to a method of
cleaning a site of a medical implement, and recites "venting a cleaning agent
through the at least one other aperture to the inner cavity as the cap is
attached over the top of the site." Independent claim 13 is directed to a
cleaning device for a medical implement and recites "a second opening in
the cap to allow evaporation of the cleaning agent from the inner cavity and
to inhibit a buildup of pressure in the cap." Independent claim 20 is directed
to a cleaning device for a medical implement and recites "at least one second
opening proximate the opening to the inner cavity to allow evaporation of
the cleaning agent from the inner cavity and to inhibit a vacuum in the cap."
ISSUE
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Does Hoang in combination with Buchman render obvious the "other
aperture," "second openings," or "means for venting" recited in the claims?
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Hoang discloses an antiseptic capping
device having a pad that may be used to clean the access portion of a
catheter access valve. (RAN 15, 4--5.) The Examiner found "[t]he cap has
29
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
threading on the interior thereof to connect with access valve threading and
the opening of the cap is sealed with a lid means 78a prior to use." (RAN 4.)
The Examiner found that "Hoang does not disclose any sort of venting, nor
does Hoang disclose a second opening or aperture to the interior of the cap
device other than the single opening covered by the lid 78a. See Fig. 1 OB,
paragraphs 23, 27-30, 33, 37 and 43-46." (RAN 4.)
The Examiner found that Buchman discloses a catheter cleaning port
cap, which is configured for threaded connection with a male luer of a
catheter port. (RAN 15-16.) The Examiner found that Buchman discloses a
cap with threading, and apertures formed in the threading containing a
sponge material. (RAN 16.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have
been obvious to add the apertures including the sponge material of Buchman
to the threads of Hoang because it would enhance cleaning of the catheter
connection by scrubbing the threads and sides thereof in addition to the top
of the site." (RAN 16.) The Examiner further stated that with respect to
claim 12, "[t]he top of the catheter site contacts the sponge and compresses
it in cleaning action as the cap is attached to the catheter access site.
Venting would intrinsically occur through the sponges of the apertures in the
threading." (RAN 16.)
Buchman discloses a catheter cleaning device. (Col. 3, 11. 12-21.)
30
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Figure 1 of Buchman is reproduced below:
Figure 1 depicts a catheter cleaning cap including a body 10,
connector cap 20, mobile frit 30, open cell wiping foam or sponges 40,
0-ring 50, and spring 60. (Col. 3, 11. 24--30.) Frit 30 forms a reservoir 70 in
cavity of body 10. Id. The mobile frit 30 is designed to provide for slow
transfer of the cleaning solution from the reservoir to the foam or sponges
40. (Col. 5, 11. 20-24.) The wiping foam or sponges 40 are disclosed to
provide scrubbing surfaces in order to clean the port threads. (Col. 5, 11.
22-24.) 0-ring 50 is disclosed as providing a seal to seal the solution in the
reservoir 70 and spring 60 is included in order to push frit 30 distally when
the device is not installed onto a port. (Col. 5, 11. 24--26.) The antimicrobial
cleaning solution resides in Reservoir 70. (Col. 5, 11. 26-28.)
31
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
In operation, the cap is screwed onto the luer fitting, which pushes the
mobile frit 30 up into reservoir 70, the increased pressure in the reservoir
forcing the solution through the frit 30 and into the foam or sponge 40,
bathing the port opening in the antimicrobial solution with a scrubbing
action on the luer top, injection port piston, and threads. (Col. 5, 11. 30-34.)
Buchman discloses that during removal of the device, the spring 60 pushes
the frit 30, creating a vacuum, which draws the solution back into the
reservoir and limits the amount of solution evaporation when the cap is not
installed onto a luer fitting. (Col. 5, 11. 37--41.)
Buchman discloses that vents may be included on the catheter
cleaning devices "to help transfer fluid from a reservoir to materials to be
contacted with the antimicrobial solution." (Col. 10, 11. 42--46.)
Patent Owner contends that Buchman requires a seal to be formed
between the cap and a medical implement, which is consistent with the
disclosure that Buchman discloses a reusable cap designed to prevent loss of
cleaning agent. (App. Br. 18, 22, 23, 24.) Patent Owner argues that contrary
to the statements made by the Examiner, Buchman does not disclose
apertures in the cap threading. (App. Br. 18-20, 22-23.) Patent Owner
contends also that Buchman does not disclose venting of disinfection
solution from the inner cavity of the cap. (App. Br. 20-21.) In this regard,
Patent Owner argues that when the medical device is mated to the cap, at
least a portion of the sponge present in the cap of Buchman would be
compressed, and function as a gasket, thus precluding any venting. (App.
Br. 22, 24--25.) Patent Owner argues that even accepting the Examiner's
position that venting occurs through the sponges present in the cap of
32
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Buchman, the language of the claims would still not be satisfied because
venting would occur only after the attachment occurs. (App. Br. 23-24, see
App. Br. 21.)
Requester contends that any desire expressed in Buchman to reduce
venting, does not diminish a disclosure and acknowledgment that venting
occurs. (Resp't Br. 5.) In this regard, Requester contends that the scrubbing
sponge configuration in Buchman facilitates some escape of fluid, which
would provide venting. (Resp't Br. 5, 7-8.) Requester argues that Buchman
does not require a seal in the embodiments relied upon by the Examiner.
(Resp 't Br. 5-6.) Requester agrees with the Examiner that Buchman
discloses a break in the threads where sponges reside. (Resp 't Br. 6.)
Requester argues that Buchman discloses venting in several contexts, such
as an escape of fluid in connection with receipt of a luer, the embodiment in
Figure 1 including an open cell sponge, and the disclosure of vents in the
catheter cleaning devices to help transfer fluid from a reservoir to materials
to be contacted with antimicrobial solution. (Resp 't Br. 7.)
The Examiner's reasoning relies on the finding that Buchman's
Figure 1 depicts breaks in the threading of the cap (apertures) that include
sponge material in order to advance the position that it would have been
obvious to include venting apertures in the cap of Hoang. We agree with
Patent Owner, that Buchman's disclosure does not support the Examiner's
position.
Buchman does not provide a detailed description of how the sponges
and threads interact. Thus, we agree that Figure 1 of Buchman and the
accompanying description in the Specification does not sufficiently convey
33
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
that there are breaks in the threading of the cap where the sponges 40 reside.
Further, we find insufficient evidence to show that the sponges would
necessarily have allowed evaporation or venting when the site is received,
such as having sufficient porosity, spacing, etc. Accordingly, we find that
the preponderance of the evidence supports Patent Owner's view that the
Examiner's determination of obviousness is not supported by sufficient
factual findings and rational underpinnings to provide sufficient basis for the
Examiner's obviousness combination and position that venting would occur
when the medical implement is received in the cleaning device cap.
As noted above, Buchman also discloses that vents may be included in
the cleaning devices. (Col. 10, 11. 42--46.) However, the vents disclosed in
Buchman are for the purpose of aiding transfer of antimicrobial solution
from a reservoir to the materials to be contacted. (Id.) As discussed above,
Buchman discloses that when the cap is screwed onto the luer fitting, the
mobile frit 30 is pushed up into reservoir 70, and the increased pressure in
the reservoir forces the solution through the frit 30 and into the foam or
sponge 40. (Col. 5, 11. 29--32.) Thus, Buchman contemplates the use of
vents to aid in fluid transfer from a reservoir to the sponge. Hoang does not
disclose a reservoir for cleaning fluid. Accordingly, there does not appear to
be a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the vents of
Buchman to the device of Hoang.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of the claims as
obvious over Hoang in view of Buchman.
34
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
Rejection VII (Ground 9) Hoang and Chin-Loy
ISSUE
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had a reason to have applied a venting channel, as
disclosed in Chin-Loy for venting the interior of a medical device during
sterilization to the cap/ cleaner device disclosed in Hoang?
DISCUSSION
The Examiner relies on the same disclosures in Hoang as discussed
above. (RAN 18, 4--5.)
The Examiner found that Chin-Loy discloses a cap for hydraulic ports
of a medical device, which preserves the sterile condition of the device until
time of use. (RAN 18.) The Examiner found that Chin-Loy "discloses an
embodiment having a channel in the cap to permit venting of the medical
device through the port while maintaining the internal condition of the
device until use of the device (column 2, lines 38-43)." (RAN 18.) The
Examiner concluded:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
including [sic] the venting channel of Chin-Loy in the cap
housing of Hoang because it would allow for venting from the
cap interior while preventing the infiltration of microorganisms
to maintain the sterile condition of the catheter access site.
(RAN 19.)
Chin-Loy discloses a cap that is capable of being attached to a
hydraulic port that allows ingress and egress of liquids such as blood. The
cap is said to "maintain an internal condition (such as sterility or cleanliness)
35
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
of the medical device until time of use." (Col. 2, 11. 1-5.) Chin-Loy
discloses a channel 66, which may be included in the cap, which
permits venting of the interior of the medical device through the
blood port during sterilization of the medical device [and]
provides a "tortuous pathway" from the exterior to the interior
of the medical device serving to prevent incursion of
microorganisms from the external environment to the interior of
the medical device after the device has been sterilized.
(Col. 5, 11. 12-20.) Chin-Loy further discloses that "sterility of the medical
device is maintained even for long periods despite the presence of an air
pathway via the channel from the exterior to the interior of the device
whenever the caps are fully attached to the blood ports." (Col. 5, 11. 21-25.)
Patent Owner acknowledges that Chin-Loy discloses a vent, but
argues that Chin-Loy discloses a channel in the cap to provide a pathway to
the interior of the medical device rather than venting of a cleaning agent
from a cap during attachment of the cap to the device. (App. Br. 26.)
Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that the channel of Chin-Loy would be
provided for a fundamentally different function than recited in the claim.
(App. Br. 26.) That is, Patent Owner argues that the venting disclosed in
Chin-Loy is entirely distinct from the venting provided by the aperture.
(App. Br. 28-29.) Patent Owner also argues that there is no reason in the
prior art for applying the channel of Chin-Loy to the cap of Hoang for the
purpose disclosed in Chin-Loy. (App. Br. 29.) Patent Owner also contends
that Bousquet, 6 cited by Requester to show that it is desirable to vent air
from an antiseptic cap to relieve pressure, is distinct from the claimed cap,
because the cap in Bousquet is configured such that cleaning agent is
6 Bousquet, US 2005/0147524 Al, published July 7, 2005.
36
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
injected after attachment of the device, which is the reason for the check
valve disclosed therein. (App. Br. 29-30.)
Requester argues that modifying Hoang with the channel of Chin-Loy
is a combination of known methods yielding predictable results. (Resp 't Br.
9-10.) Initially, Requester contends that Chin-Loy is a cleaning cap and that
Chin-Loy is an acknowledgement that antiseptic caps can be provided for
the purpose of inhibiting pressure build-up without allowing undesirable
ingress of microorganisms. (Resp 't Br. 9, 10.) Requester contends that
vents as disclosed in Chin-Loy can be formed in the cap of Hoang. (Resp 't
Br. 9-10.) Requester argues that the motivation for doing so can be found in
Patent Owner's admission that it is desirable in the art to allow the cleaning
agent to dry and that Chin-Loy provides a suggestion to modify the cap of
Hoang due to the ability of the vents to allow the escape of the sterilizing
agent to relieve the pressure of gas that may otherwise be compressed
without allowing microorganisms into the sterile environment. (Resp 't Br.
10-11.)
Initially, we are mindful that the Supreme Court has instructed that "if
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
In addition, we are also mindful that in the related litigation, the
Federal Circuit, in reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment
of invalidity, observed that Chin-Loy was related to blood ports of
37
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
hemodialysis machines, and that there was insufficient evidence or
explanation as to "whether disinfecting caps like the one described in Hoang
are sterilized or would benefit from venting during such a sterilization
procedure." Ivera Medical, 801 F.3d at 1345. With respect to the disclosure
in the '794 Patent related to effect of drying the site exposed to cleaning
solution in column 1, lines 51-55, our reviewing court observed that this
disclosure was related to manual swabbing, and not disinfecting caps, where
disinfecting caps are designed to retain cleaning agent. Id. The Federal
Circuit then stated: "the tradeoff between the desire to retain the cleaning
agent and the patents' disclosure regarding drying is a factual matter left to
the fact finder." Id.
The reasons offered for modifying Hoang with the channel of
Chin-Loy are based on the premise that the venting disclosed in Chin-Loy
relates to relieving pressure build-up during sterilization and which also
prevents the ingress of microorganisms into the cap after that process is
complete such that it would have been obvious to have provided a channel
for similar relief of pressure build-up in cleaning caps such as disclosed in
Hoang. (RAN 19; Resp't Br. 10-11.) After consideration of the evidence of
record, we find that there is insufficient rational underpinnings to support the
reasoning offered for modifying the cap of Hoang with the channel disclosed
in Chin-Loy.
Even if we agree with Patent Owner that the channel of Chin-Loy is
used for a different purpose than the openings or apertures recited in the
claims of the '794 Patent, we do not view this alone as being dispositive.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to account for common sense
38
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
when considering whether a combination of references would have been
obvious: "[ c ]ommon sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. In the instant case, the
inquiry turns on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to provide vents in the cleaning caps of Hoang in view of the
disclosure in Chin-Loy.
We find insufficient evidence of record that there was a recognized
problem of pressure build-up in cleaning caps such as those disclosed in
Hoang, e.g., to the extent that cap were popping off, to have provided a
reason to have applied the channel of Chin-Loy, which is used to allow for
venting of gas during sterilization and storage thereafter, to the cap of
Hoang. Requester points to alleged Patent Owner admissions that vents
were known to prevent pop off of the cleaning cap due to pressure build-up
during evaporation (Resp't Br. 11, Ex. B. pp. 12-13.) However, as pointed
out by Patent Owner, there are other ways to manage pressure build-up other
than providing venting. (App. Br. 7; Reb. Br. 2-3.) There is no indication
that the prior art experienced a problem regarding pressure build-up in a
cleaning cap that would have suggested a need for venting the cap. (See
App. Br. 27; Reb. Br. 3--4.) In addition, the Rice Declaration discusses an
increase in internal pressure in the cap upon attachment of the cap to the
medical device, but does not opine that the internal pressure was of such a
degree that would require venting to the atmosphere. (Rice Deel. i-f 7 .)
Further, while the '794 Patent acknowledges that drying of the cleaning fluid
39
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
is important to kill microorganisms (col. 1, 11. 51-5 5), as discussed above,
the prior art of record at the time of the invention discloses the desire to
maintain the amount of cleaning fluid in cleaning caps, rather than to
promote evaporation.
As discussed above, Chin-Loy discloses a channel to vent the interior
of the medical device during sterilization and during storage thereafter,
which we understand to be to allow the flow, i.e., to provide a pathway for
sterilization gas during manufacture. (App. Br. 26, 28, Reb. Br. 3--4;
Chin-Loy, col. 1, 11. 41--42, col. 5, 11. 13-15.) Because we find that there is
insufficient evidence on this record to support the position that there was a
reason to use the channel of Chin-Loy for a purpose beyond its disclosed
primary purpose of providing a pathway during sterilization and storage of
the device and insufficiently persuasive evidence that such a structure is
relevant to the cleaning cap of Hoang, there are insufficient rational
underpinnings to support the position that modifying Hoang with Chin-Loy
would have been obvious. 7
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Requester's contentions that
modifying Hoang with Chin-Loy: is a combination of known methods
yielding predictable results; is a simple substitution of one known element
for another; is use of a known technique to alter a similar device; or that
there was a reason to modify Hoang disclosed in the prior art. (Resp 't Br. 8-
11.) As a result, any ability of the channel of Chin-Loy to maintain an
7 For similar reasons, we find Bousquet unpersuasive because the check
valve disclosed therein is to allow the escape of air during injection of liquid
sterilizing agent, which has not been shown persuasively to be relevant to
the cleaning cap of Hoang. (Bousquet, i-f 42.)
40
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
aseptic environment in preventing the incursion of microorganisms (RAN
42) is irrelevant, as there is insufficient reasoning to include such channels in
the cap of Hoang in the first instance. We have not been directed to any
other rationale sufficient to support the combination of these references to
render the claims obvious.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject the claims as
obvious over Hoang in view of Chin-Loy.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 is
reversed.
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a)(l), the "[p]arties to the
appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of
the date of: ... [t]he original decision of the Board under§ 41.77(a)." A
request for rehearing must be in compliance with 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 79(b ).
Comments in opposition to the request and additional requests for rehearing
must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(c) & (d), respectively. Under
3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 79( e ), the times for requesting rehearing under paragraph (a)
of this section, for requesting further rehearing under paragraph ( d) of this
section, and for submitting comments under paragraph ( c) of this section
may not be extended.
An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an
inter partes reexamination proceeding "commenced" on or after November
41
Appeal2015-003842
Reexamination Control 95/002,085
Patent 7,780,794 Cl
2, 2002 may not be taken "until all parties' rights to request rehearing have
been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and
appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board." 37 C.F.R. § 41.81. See
also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., Rev. 7, July 2008).
REVERSED
PATENT OWNER:
FOLEY HOAG, LLP
Patent Group, Seaport West
155 Seaport Blvd
Boston, MA 02210-2600
THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
42