經查，其中很重要的議題是，先前技術之間的累積效應（cumulative）。
IPR2019-00975案件資訊：
IPR異議人：OTICON MEDICAL AB; OTICON MEDICAL LLC; WILLIAM DEMANT HOLDING A/S
專利權人：COCHLEAR LIMITED
系爭專利：US9,838,807 (IPR2019-00975)
本案緣起Oticon對Cochlear的專利'807提起IPR異議，PTAB根據雙方提出資料決定啟始系爭專利的IPR審查。啟始理由主要是：審查官根據雙方提出的異議理由、初步回應等資料初判異議人提出異議理由具有可以撤銷其中至少一項專利範圍專利權的「合理的勝訴可能性」("reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition")。涉及法條：35 U.S.C. 311、35 U.S.C. 313、35 U.S.C. 314(a)。
系爭專利US9,838,807關於醫用的義肢（耳部）骨錨固定器，系爭專利的技術在於結構特徵，還可傳遞聲音。
1. An anchoring fixture for anchoring a prosthesis to a skull bone comprising:
a screw thread apparatus including a screw thread having a varying outer diameter;
a flange configured to function as a stop for the anchoring fixture adapted to rest on top of the bone when the anchoring fixture is implanted into the bone; and
a circumferential groove located, with respect to a side of the flange, on the anchoring fixture on a threaded side of the anchoring fixture,
wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing prosthesis component to the skull bone at a location behind an external ear so that sound is transmitted from the hearing prosthesis via the skull bone to the cochlea.
主要討論議題：35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
IPR異議理由：
WO 98/55049 (“Håkansson”)
US 6,981,873 B2 (“Choi”)
WO 2006/065205 A1 (“Brånemark”)
US 7,074,222 B2 (“Westerkull ’222”)
US 7,116,794 B2 (“Westerkull ’794”)
面對異議理由，先解釋專利範圍，依照案例"Phillips v. AWH Corp (Fed. Cir. 2005)"，發明相關領域一般技術人員參照說明書與其審查歷史以通常與慣用的意思來解釋專利範圍（"...the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning they would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the specification and prosecution history."）。
（技術細節就不在此討論）
案件涉及「35 U.S.C. § 325(d)」有關PTAB可以拒絕啟始/審理過去已經審理過的理由，包括相同或實質相同的先前技術以及論點，除非異議人可以證明當時審理有誤。
針對325(d)議題，考量的是「Becton Dickinson factors」：
(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination;
(b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination;
(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection;
(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art;
(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and
(f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
以下為PTAB針對"Becton Dickinson Factors"結論（回應專利權人的答辯）：
- Becton Dickinson factors (a),(b): 本次異議理由採用的前案Choi過去並未被審理過。編按，這裡有個句子"cumulative nature of the asserted art"，就是指即便引用前案不是同一案，但前後採用的前案有「累積效應（cumulative effect）」，但被PTAB否決。
過去審理用的前案Härle：
本次異議理由使用的Choi：
USPTO審查委員曾於過去審查中引用Härle作為新穎性核駁引證案，與本次引用Choi中的"circumferential groove"結構不同，不會形成"累積效應（cumulative）"。（重要）
（重要）PTAB意見："We observe that Choi is a different reference than Härle beyond the fact that Choi’s grooves are structurally different than Härle’s grooves and serve a different purpose."
- Becton Dickinson factors (c),(d): 查核系爭專利的審查歷史，PTAB委員認為，即便本次異議理由的前案「Westerkull ’794, Westerkull ’222, and Håkansson」曾被USPTO審查專利時考量過，但另一案Choi並未被考量，仍不足以讓PTAB拒絕審理！
（編按，因此上述有關「累積效應」的判斷影響本案最終是否啟始的判斷）
"There is new, noncumulative prior art asserted in the Petition, e.g., Choi. For at least this reason, we determine not to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition on this basis."
Becton Dickinson factors (e),(f): 因為以上判定，就不論此要素。
最後是103判斷，證明異議人已經證明系爭專利中至少一項範圍有被撤銷的合理的勝訴可能性！
結論：
We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 of the ’807 patent are unpatentable.
相關法條：
35 U.S.C. 311 INTER PARTES REVIEW.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the review.
(b) SCOPE.—A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
(c) FILING DEADLINE.*—A petition for inter partes review shall be filed after the later of either—
(1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or
(2) if a post-grant review is instituted under chapter 32, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.
35 U.S.C. 313 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION.
If an inter partes review petition is filed under section 311, the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that sets forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement of this chapter.
35 U.S.C. 314 INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW.
(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
...
IPR決定：IPR2019-00975（備份：https://app.box.com/s/u5xoh72fitvhgqz4o42ij68o1r8ow0iw）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言