In Re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
696 F.3d 1142
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Abbott owns the ’752 and ’509 patents, directed to in vivo monitoring of analytes via an electrochemical sensor and a sensor control unit.
- The Board in ex parte reexaminations rejected many claims as indefinite, anticipated, or obvious over multiple references and official notices.
- The pivotal disputed term is “electrochemical sensor,” with the Board adopting a broad interpretation that includes sensors with external cables or wires.
- The Board also construed “substantially fixed” in the ’509 patent to allow some movement, including movement akin to the Shichiri I system.
- Abbott argued the Board improperly relied on the specification’s criticisms of prior art to redefine the claim term and failed to disavow sensors with cables.
- The Federal Circuit vacates-in-part and remands for correct claim construction and remand of nineteen official-notice-based rejections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether electrochemical sensor includes external cables | Abbott contends broad construction improperly imports cables. | PTO argues no explicit disclaimer required; broad reading consistent with spec. | Unreasonable construction; electrochemical sensor excludes external cables. |
| Whether substantially fixed allows Shichiri I movement | Shichiri I movement exceeds contemplated movement under substantially fixed. | Some movement permissible; Board's construction allowed some movement. | Movement in Shichiri I is too great; remand to apply original substantially fixed construction. |
| Official notice rejections | nineteen official-notice rejections should be remanded/withdrawn. | Board properly used official notice with prior art. | Vacate remand for proper proceedings on these nineteen claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re American Academy of Sciences Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims should be interpreted consistent with the specification)
- In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claims given broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc guidance on claim construction; specification as guide)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (definitive guidance on claim construction and specification role)
- Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disavowal analysis in background/description contexts)
- In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (disavowal standards for claim scope in prosecution history)
- Am. Acad. Sci. Tech Ctr. v. Am. Ass'n for the Advancement of Sci., 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discretion in reliance on specification for claim meaning)