Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`Filed on behalf of Inguran, LLC
`d/b/a Sexing Technologies
`
`By: Kirt S. O’Neill
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`300 Convent Street, Suite 1600
`San Antonio, TX 78205-3732
`Ph: 210-281-7000
`Fax: 210-224-2035
`Email: koneill@akingump.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`INGURAN, LLC d/b/a SEXING TECHNOLOGIES,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PREMIUM GENETICS (UK) LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`Appln. No. 14/169,927 filed January 31, 2014
`Issued January 13, 2015
`Title: MULTIPLE LAMINAR FLOW-BASED PARTICLE AND CELLULAR
`IDENTIFICATION
`
`__________________________________
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-328 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`
`B.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Certification of Petitioner’s Standing to Request Post-Grant
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.201 ........................................................ 1
`Time for Filing Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ...................................................................... 2
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b) and
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 2
`Eligibility of Challenged Claims for Post-Grant Review ..................... 3
`D.
`E. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................... 4
`F.
`Fee for Post-Grant Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) ....................... 5
`
`C.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’395 PATENT DISCLOSURE AND
`ALLEGED INVENTIONS .............................................................................. 5
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................... 9
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS HAVE AN EFFECTIVE FILING
`DATE OF JANUARY 31, 2014 ..................................................................... 10
`A.
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Entitled to the Filing Dates of
`Any Related Applications That Fail to Disclose the Claimed
`Invention .............................................................................................. 11
`The Subject Matter of Claim 1 Was Not Disclosed in Any
`Related Applications............................................................................ 12
`The Subject Matter of Claim 2 and Its Dependent Claims Was
`Not Disclosed in Any Related Applications ........................................ 18
`References Patent Owner Attempted to “Incorporate by
`Reference” Do Not Give The Challenged Claims an Effective
`Filing Date Earlier Than January 31, 2014 ......................................... 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 23
`A. Mueth – U.S. Patent 7,355,696 ........................................................... 23
`B. Durack – PCT Publication No. WO 2004/088283 .............................. 24
`C.
`Frontin-Rollet – PCT Publication No. WO 2005/075629 A1 ............. 25
`D. Wada – U.S. Patent No. 6,506,609 ...................................................... 26
`E.
`Kachel .................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`VII.
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’395 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................................... 28
`A. Ground 1: Indefiniteness of Claims 1-14 of the ’395 Patent .............. 28
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-13 Are Anticipated Under § 102(a)(1) By
`U.S. Patent 7,355,696 (“Mueth”) ........................................................ 31
`C. Ground 3: Claim 14 Is Rendered Obvious by Mueth Alone or in
`View of Durack ................................................................................... 43
`D. Ground 4: Claim 1 Is Anticipated Under § 102(a)(1) By
`Frontin-Rollet ...................................................................................... 45
`Ground 5: Claim 1 Is Anticipated Under § 102(a)(1) By Durack ....... 50
`Ground 6: Claims 2-14 Are Rendered Obvious by the
`Combination of Wada, Durack and Kachel ......................................... 57
`G. Ground 7 – Lack of Enablement of Claims 1-14 of the ’395
`Patent ................................................................................................... 73
`
`E.
`F.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent Number 8,933,395 to Mueth et al. (the “’395 Patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Giacomo Vacca
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Giacomo Vacca
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent Application No. 13/412,969, issued as Patent No.
`8,653,442
`PCT Publication No. WO 2004/088283 (“Durack”)
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. (2007)
`Ex. 1007
`PCT Publication No. WO 2005/075629 (“Frontin-Rollet”)
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,355,696 (“Mueth ’696”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,506,609 (“Wada”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,135,759 (“Johnson”)
`Ex. 1011
`“Sex Preselection: High-Speed Flow Cytometric Sorting of X and Y
`Sperm for Maximum Efficiency,” L.A. Johnson and G. R. Welch,
`Theriogenology, Vol. 52, Issue 8, 1323–1341 (1999) (“Welch”)
`“Uniform Lateral Orientation Caused by Flow Forces of Flat
`Particles in Flow-Through Systems,” V. Kachel et al., Journal of
`Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, Vol. 25, Issue 7, pp. 774-780
`(1977) (“Kachel”)
`Ex. 1013 File history of ’395 Patent (U.S. Patent Application No. 14/169,927)
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/399,386
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/435,541
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/630,904, issued as Patent No.
`7,241,988
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/867,328, issued as Patent No.
`7,150,834
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/934,597, issued as Patent No.
`7,118,676
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Patent Application No. 11/543,773, issued as Patent No.
`7,402,131
`Ex. 1020 U.S. Patent Application No. 12/213,109, issued as Patent No.
`7,699,767
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent Application No. 12/659,277, issued as Patent No.
`8,158,927
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
`344 F.3d. 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 74
`
`Automotive Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of North Am., Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 74
`
`Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Vaeck,
`947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ...................................................................... 73, 79
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................... 73, 74
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 28
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 77
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 12
`
`MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs., Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
`823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 74
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Pi-Net Int’l, Inc.,
`No. IPR2014-00414 ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC,
`516 F.3d. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 74
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 12, 20, 22, 23
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ........................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ................................................................................. 12, 73, 77, 79
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ............................................................................................. 28, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`Section 3(n)(1) of the America Invents Act. Leahy–Smith America Invents
`Act, Pub. L. No. 112‐29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011) ...................... 3, 10
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.201 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.204(b) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`MPEP § 2173.02 ...................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`Petitioner Inguran, LLC (“Petitioner”) requests post-grant review of claims
`
`1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,933,395 (“the ’395 Patent”). Ex. 1001, ’395 Patent. As
`
`shown in this Petition and supported by the declaration of Giacomo Vacca, Ph.D.,
`
`the claims of the ’395 Patent are unpatentable due to anticipation, obviousness,
`
`indefiniteness, and a lack of enablement. Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002. Notably, the
`
`inventors of the ’395 patent, including Mr. Mueth, barred themselves from
`
`obtaining the challenged claims by disclosing the claimed invention well before the
`
`effective filing date of the patent in U.S. Patent No. 7,355,696 (“Mueth”).
`
`Petitioner therefore requests cancelation of claims 1-14.
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW
`
`A. Certification of Petitioner’s Standing to Request Post-Grant
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.201
`
`Petitioner certifies that neither the Petitioner nor any of its privies are barred
`
`or estopped from requesting post-grant review challenging the claims of the ’395
`
`Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) neither Petitioner nor any of its privies
`
`own the ’395 Patent; and (2) neither Petitioner nor any of its privies have filed a
`
`civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’395 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`B.
`
`Time for Filing Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202
`
`The ’395 Patent issued on January 13, 2015, and the present Petition is being
`
`filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the
`
`patent, or October 13, 2015.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art and supporting declarations, claims 1-14 of the ’395
`
`Patent (the “Challenged Claims”) are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Challenged Claims are also
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to indefiniteness and a lack of enablement.
`
`Accordingly, all of the Challenged Claims should be canceled. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.204 (b). The following is a list of prior art patents and printed publications
`
`that anticipate claims 1-14 or render them obvious:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,355,696 (“Mueth”)
`Ex. 1007 PCT Publication No. WO 2005/075629
`(“Frontin-Rollet”)
`Ex. 1005 PCT Publication No. WO 2004/088283
`(“Durack”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,506,609 (“Wada”)
`Ex. 1012 “Uniform Lateral Orientation Caused by Flow
`Forces of Flat Particles in Flow-Through
`Systems,” V. Kachel et al. (“Kachel”)
`
`Publication
`/Issue Date
`April 8, 2008
`August 18, 2005
`
` October 14, 2004
`
`January 14, 2003
` 1977
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`Petitioner requests cancelation of claims 1-14 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`1-14
`1-13
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`14
`
`1
`
`1
`2-14
`
`1-14
`
`Description
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) by Mueth
`’696
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Mueth, alone or in
`view of Durack
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) by Frontin-
`Rollet
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) by Durack
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Wada in view of
`Durack and Kachel
`Lack of Enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Petitioner’s identification of where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`found in the prior art, a description of how the claims fail to comply with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, and a description of the evidence relied upon are addressed in
`
`Section VII of this Petition.
`
`D. Eligibility of Challenged Claims for Post-Grant Review
`
`As discussed in Section V below, the Challenged Claims have an effective
`
`filing date of January 31, 2014, and are therefore eligible for post-grant review
`
`pursuant to Section 3(n)(1) of the America Invents Act. Leahy–Smith America
`
`Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112‐29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`E. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`
`The real parties in interest are Inguran, LLC, which does business as Sexing
`
`Technologies, and XY LLC, Inguran LLC’s wholly owned subsidiary.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner is unaware of any judicial or administrative matter that would
`
`affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Kirt S. O’Neill
`USPTO Registration No. 38,257
`koneill@akingump.com
`Tel.: (210) 281-7106
`
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
`FELD LLP
`300 Convent Street, Suite 1600
`San Antonio, TX 78205
`Fax: (210 224-2035
`
`Daniel L. Moffett
`USPTO Registration No. 60,715
`dmoffett@akingump.com
`Tel.: (210) 281-7155
`
`George Andrew Rosbrook
`USPTO Registration No. 69,728
`arsobrook@akingump.com
`Tel.: (210) 281-7026
`
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
`FELD LLP
`300 Convent Street, Suite 1600
`San Antonio, TX 78205
`Fax: (210 224-2035
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Service on Petitioner
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail, hand-delivery, or facsimile to
`
`Kirt S. O’Neill at the address and fax number specified above.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`F.
`
`Fee for Post-Grant Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)
`
`The required fees for requesting post-grant review, as specified in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(b), were paid at the time of filing. Should any additional fees be required
`
`in association with this petition, the Board is hereby authorized to deduct such fees
`
`from Akin Gump’s Deposit Account No. 16-2435.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’395 PATENT DISCLOSURE AND ALLEGED
`INVENTIONS
`
`The ’395 patent, entitled “Multiple Laminar Flow-Based Particle and
`
`Cellular Identification,” is generally directed to techniques and systems for
`
`physically separating various particulate or cellular components in a fluid mixture
`
`into multiple fluid flows using differential sedimentation, holographic optical
`
`trapping, and similar manipulation techniques. Ex. 1001, 1:65-2:3; 5:50-6:2.
`
`As an example, the patent discloses a method of separating a blood sample
`
`into its individual components, such as red blood cells, platelets, white blood cells,
`
`and plasma. Id., 5:50-54. This is done by placing the sample into a “first flow”
`
`and using a “second flow” to provide a separation region that allows for
`
`differential sedimentation of certain cellular components into the second flow. The
`
`second flow, having received certain cellular components, can
`
`then be
`
`differentially removed from the first flow containing the remaining components.
`
`Id., 6:9-19. With respect to a blood sample, for example, a combination of red and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`white blood cells may be physically separated into the second flow through
`
`differential sedimentation, while blood platelets in the sample may remain in the
`
`first flow. Further physical separation techniques, such as holographic separation
`
`through “laser steering” may then be employed. Id., 6:24-30.
`
`Figure 1 is representative of one of the sorting techniques disclosed in the
`
`’395 patent specification.
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1. The sorting apparatus illustrated in the figure includes a sorting channel
`
`(110), a plurality of inlets (on the left), and a plurality of corresponding outlets (on
`
`the right). Fluid flows, labeled W, X, Y, and Z, enter the inlets and flow,
`
`substantially non-turbulently, or otherwise as a laminar flow, across the sorting
`
`channel, and are output through corresponding outlets.
`
`Figure 2 is representative of the optical trapping sorting techniques disclosed
`
`in the ’395 patent specification.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 2. Two flows, W and X, are shown in the figure, with W having two
`
`components, “A” and “B.” Id., 16:52-53. Holographic optical traps (conic
`
`sections) are utilized to capture “A” components and move them into flow X. The
`
`patent explains that such optical trapping is particularly useful for purification of a
`
`fraction that does not work well with sedimentation techniques. Id.
`
`The ’395 patent specification discloses a few other cell manipulation
`
`methods that are used in conjunction with the multiple flow techniques taught in
`
`the specification. Id., 38:58-40:23. For example, it discloses a disc based sorter
`
`that uses the rotational motion of a disc combined with optical trapping to sort
`
`cells. Id., 38:60-39:23. It also discloses Fluorescence-Activated cell sorting
`
`(“FACS”) whereby cells are identified by using dyes that absorb certain
`
`wavelengths of light, thereby allowing holographic optical traps to easily sort them
`
`from a given sample. Id., 39:28-46. Another method disclosed is the use of lasers
`
`to selectively kill cells of a biological specimen, e.g., pathogens in blood, through
`
`holographic optical traps or otherwise, and the physical removal of the dead cells.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`Id., 40:10-23. Notably, each of these alternate sorting techniques disclosed in the
`
`specification is taught in conjunction with the optical trapping apparatus discussed
`
`above, physical separation of cells, or the other cell manipulation techniques
`
`discussed in the specification, and thus only in context of physically separating
`
`particles.
`
`The claims of the ’395 patent, however, are very different from the invention
`
`described in the specification because they do not relate to the physical separation
`
`of components into separate channels. Independent claim 1, for example, recites
`
`an apparatus for detecting components in a fluid mixture, damaging or killing
`
`selected components, and receiving both the selected components and the
`
`nonselected components into a single channel. Ex. 1001, 44:42-61. And
`
`independent claim 2 and its dependent claims are directed to using multiple sheath
`
`fluid flows to constrict a sample stream in such a manner that the cells within the
`
`stream are flattened and aligned so that cells may be distinguished and target cells
`
`may be destroyed. Id., 44:62-45:22. None of the claims of the ’395 patent relate
`
`to physically separating cellular components into separate channels, which is the
`
`focus of the ’395 patent specification.
`
`It is notable that the ’395 patent claims are almost identical to the disclosure
`
`in another patent owned by the Patent Owner—the ’696 patent by Mueth, et al. In
`
`fact, in some instances, the claim language in Mueth is identical to the claim
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`language of the ’395 patent. Three of the four inventors on Mueth are also named
`
`inventors on the ’395 patent. The ’395 patent claims are closer to the specification
`
`of Mueth than the ’395 patent, but were possibly claimed with a different
`
`specification in order to obtain earlier priority—Mueth’s earliest priority date is
`
`February 2005. Notably, the ’395 patent does not even identify Mueth as a Related
`
`Application, nor did the patentees specifically call the examiner’s attention to
`
`Mueth during prosecution, even though three of the inventors are common to both
`
`patents. As discussed in section VII.B, the inventors barred themselves from
`
`claiming the invention previously disclosed in Mueth in the ’395 patent.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`A claim subject to post-grant review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner submits that all claim terms of the ’395 patent
`
`should be interpreted accordingly. Further, as explained in section VII.A, all
`
`claims of the ’395 patent are indefinite because they include ambiguous limitations
`
`relating to “either side” and “all available sides” of a sample that are subject to
`
`multiple reasonable interpretations.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’395
`
`Patent would have been a person having general knowledge of the use of cell
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`manipulation and sorting techniques. In particular, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or biomedical,
`
`optical, or mechanical engineering, and at least 6 years of experience with cell
`
`sorting methods. Alternatively, the person may have a master’s degree and at least
`
`4 years of said experience. Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, at ¶ 71.
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS HAVE AN EFFECTIVE FILING
`DATE OF JANUARY 31, 2014
`
`Although the ’395 patent claims priority to several non-provisional and
`
`provisional patents reaching back to July 31, 2002, the Challenged Claims were
`
`not fully disclosed until they were submitted in a preliminary claim amendment
`
`filed on January 31, 2014, as part of the application that matured into the ’395
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1013, Prelim. Amend., at 4-8. The Challenged Claims, therefore,
`
`are entitled to an effective filing date of January 31, 2014, at the earliest, and are
`
`subject to post-grant review under the America Invents Act. See Leahy–Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112‐29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011); see
`
`also SAP Am., Inc. v. Pi-Net Int’l, Inc., No. IPR2014-00414, Paper 11, 11-16
`
`(PTAB Aug. 18, 2014) (holding that the challenged claims were not entitled to the
`
`patent owner’s claimed priority and addressing intervening art).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Not Entitled to the Filing Dates of
`Any Related Applications That Fail to Disclose the Claimed
`Invention
`
`The ’395 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 14/169,927 (the “’927
`
`application”) filed on January 31, 2014, which claimed priority to a chain of seven
`
`U.S. non-provisional patent applications and two provisional applications, as
`
`shown in the following table (the “Related Applications”):
`
`’395 Patent Application/Patent No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/399,386
`Provisional App. No. 60/435,541
`Application No. 10/630,904, issued as Patent
`No. 7,241,988
`Application No. 10/867,328, issued as Patent
`No. 7,150,834 (Continuation-in-Part)
`Application No. 10/934,597, issued as Patent
`No. 7,118,676 (Continuation-in-Part)
`Application No. 11/543,773, issued as Patent
`No. 7,402,131 (Divisional)
`Application No. 12/213,109, issued as Patent
`No. 7,699,767 (Divisional)
`Application No. 12/659,277, issued as Patent
`No. 8,158,927 (Divisional)
`Application No. 13/412,969, issued as Patent
`No. 8,653,442 (Continuation)
`
`Jul. 31, 2002 Ex. 1014
`Dec. 20, 2002 Ex. 1015
`Jul. 31, 2003 Ex. 1016
`
`Jun. 13, 2004 Ex. 1017
`
`Sep. 3, 2004 Ex. 1018
`
`Oct. 6, 2006
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Jun. 13, 2008 Ex. 1020
`
`Mar. 2, 2010 Ex. 1021
`
`Mar. 6, 2012 Ex. 1004
`
`The specification for U.S. Patent No. 7,118,676, filed on September 3, 2004,
`
`is identical to the ’395 patent’s specification, as are all the specifications of the
`
`intervening Related Applications,
`
`including the specification submitted
`
`in
`
`Application No. 13/412,969 (the ’969 application”), which immediately preceded
`
`the filing of the ’395 patent application.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`The Challenged Claims are only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing
`
`date of a Related Application if the application adequately discloses the subject
`
`matter of the claims. More specifically, “[f]or a claim in a later-filed application to
`
`be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994),
`
`the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(a).” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The
`
`earlier application, therefore, must “contain a written description of the invention,
`
`and of the manner and process of making and using it.” Id. And the written
`
`description must be sufficient to reasonably convey to one of skill in the art that the
`
`inventor possessed the later-claimed subject matter at the time the parent
`
`application was filed. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1991); Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A disclosure
`
`in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is
`
`not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; it must describe the
`
`claimed invention with all its limitations. See Tronzo¸ 156 F.3d at 1158.
`
`B.
`
`The Subject Matter of Claim 1 Was Not Disclosed in Any Related
`Applications
`
`Claim 1 of the ’395 Patent covers an apparatus for identifying components
`
`in a fluid mixture comprising a “first flow” containing the fluid mixture and a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`plurality of “additional flows of buffer solution.” Ex. 1001, 44:45-51. The final
`
`element of the claim requires “at least one channel disposed at said another end of
`
`the apparatus [that] is adapted to receive said first flow and said additional flows
`
`after operation of said laser on said selected components.” Id., 44:58-62. Thus,
`
`claim 1 expressly encompasses one output channel and covers an apparatus where
`
`the fluid sample containing the cells or other components is combined with the
`
`buffer solution from the “plurality of buffer input channels” into a single channel.
`
`The subject matter recited in the final element of claim 1 is not disclosed in
`
`the ’395 specification or any of the Related Applications. This is best
`
`demonstrated by analyzing the specification for the ’969 application, which is
`
`identical to the ’395 specification and immediately preceded the ’395 patent in the
`
`chain of Related Applications. A review of the ’969 specification shows that every
`
`disclosed embodiment focuses on the physical separation of particles, especially
`
`cells, into different channels by differential sedimentation, optical trapping, and
`
`other cell manipulation techniques. See ’969 Application, Ex. 1004, 11:60-12:10
`
`(characterizing
`
`the “various embodiments” of the
`
`invention as
`
`involving
`
`“separating components into corresponding flows”). In fact, the Field of the
`
`Invention expressly states that the “present invention relates generally to
`
`techniques and systems for separation of particulate or cellular materials such as
`
`blood, semen and other particles or cells into their various components and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`fractions, using multiple laminar flows which further may be coupled with laser
`
`steering such as holographic optical tapping and manipulation.” Id., 1:64-2:2.
`
`Figure 1 of both the ’969 specification and the ’395 patent illustrates the
`
`emphasis in the Related Applications on physically separating components and
`
`corresponding flows into multiple channels or outlets. The Figure, reproduced
`
`below, depicts an apparatus with a plurality of flows, labeled W, X, Y, and Z. Each
`
`flow enters one of the inlets, flows across a sorting channel where the components
`
`are distributed between the various flows, and exits through a corresponding outlet.
`
`’969 Application, Ex. 1004, 13:21-28. There is no single channel adapted to
`
`receive these multiple flows “after operation of said laser on said selected
`
`components.” Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 86.
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1. The embodiment shown in Figure 2 likewise demonstrates multiple
`
`flows entering the sorting region and then exiting the sorting channel as separate
`
`flows. ’969 Application, Ex. 1004, 16:52-53; see also Figs. 13; 19-23, 27.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`While
`
`the specification discloses other embodiments,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`incorporation of a laser to damage or destroy cells, there is no disclosure of a
`
`channel that is adapted to receive all of the flows after the operation. For example,
`
`with respect to the killing laser embodiment, the specification states that “the dead
`
`cells are removed” after they have been identified and killed. Id., 39:4-6.
`
`Consistent wit