`
`Date Filed: Jun 22, 2016
`
`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
`
`______________
`
`CASE PGR2015-00017
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,933,395
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`CLAIM 1 IS ANTICIPATED BY DURACK .................................................. 3
`
`A. Durack discloses a plurality of buffer input channels on either
`side of the first input channel ................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Durack discloses additional flows having a flow direction along
`a length of the apparatus from one end to another end ......................... 7
`
`Durack discloses at least one channel disposed at another end of
`the apparatus after operation of the laser ............................................ 11
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`The capillary tube of Durack is a “channel” under the
`final limitation of Claim 1 ......................................................... 11
`
`The collection receptacle of Durack is a “channel” under
`the final limitation of claim 1.................................................... 17
`
`III. MUETH AND FRONTIN-ROLLET ALTERNATIVELY
`ANTICIPATE CLAIM 1 BECAUSE IT HAS A PRIORITY DATE OF
`JANUARY 31, 2014 ...................................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`The final element of claim 1 is not entitled to a filing date
`earlier than January 31, 2014 .............................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`
`The specification fails to expressly or inherently disclose
`a single channel for receiving all flows .................................... 19
`
`B. Mueth and Frontin-Rollet anticipate claim 1 ...................................... 21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition shows that claim 1 of the ’395 patent, the only remaining claim
`
`at issue now, is unpatentable in view of Durack, Mueth, and Frontin-Rollet
`
`independently. The Petition is supported by the analysis and conclusions of an
`
`expert in the field, Dr. Vacca. In response, Patent Owner argues only that claim 1
`
`is not invalid, and has offered to disclaim claims 2 through 14 of the ’395 patent.1
`
`Patent Owner submits no expert declaration to rebut the opinions of Dr. Vacca
`
`relating to the priority issue or to his specific invalidity analyses.
`
`Despite Patent Owner’s attempts to narrow the interpretation of the claim
`
`language, the Petition shows that Durack discloses every element of claim 1, and
`
`therefore, renders claim 1 invalid. Mueth and Frontin-Rollet individually disclose
`
`every limitation of claim 1 as well—a point which Patent Owner acknowledges;
`
`however, Patent Owner argues that claim 1 is entitled to a priority date that pre-
`
`dates the two references. Consistent with Patent Owner’s own interpretation of the
`
`final limitation of claim 1 as applied to Durack, neither the earlier applications nor
`
`the specification itself provide written description support for a single output
`
`channel that receives a “first flow” and “additional flows” after the operation of a
`
`
`1 Although Patent Owner has offered to file a statutory disclaimer, it has yet
`
`to do so. Regardless, Petitioner is entitled to a judgment against Patent Owner
`
`finding claims 2–14 of the ’395 patent unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`laser. Because the earliest priority date of the challenged claim fails to pre-date
`
`Mueth and Frontin-Rollet, both references individually render claim 1 invalid.
`
`Accordingly, claim 1 of the ’395 patent is invalid in view of Durack, and in
`
`the alternative, invalid in view of Mueth and Frontin-Rollet independently.
`
`II. CLAIM 1 IS ANTICIPATED BY DURACK
`
`Patent Owner’s contention that Durack does not anticipate claim 1 is based
`
`on a narrow reading of the claim and ignores the teachings of the prior art. As the
`
`Board noted, “Petitioner establishes sufficiently that Durack discloses each of the
`
`recited limitations of claim 1.” Paper 8, Institution Decision 30 (“Decision”).
`
`A. Durack discloses a plurality of buffer input channels on either
`side of the first input channel
`
`Durack discloses two or more buffer input channels on either side of a first
`
`input channel that carries the sample fluid mixture. As discussed in the Petition,
`
`Fig. 5 depicts at least two buffer input channels (radial bores 173 and 183) for
`
`delivering sheath fluid to the apparatus. Paper 1, Petition 52 (“Pet.”). While
`
`Patent Owner argues that Durack’s buffer input channels are orthogonal or adjacent
`
`to one another, nothing in Durack’s specification limits the buffer input channels to
`
`a particular configuration. See Paper 13, Patent Owner Response 7-8 (“Resp.”).
`
`Indeed, Fig. 5 does not specify a particular configuration and further, it is just one
`
`embodiment disclosed by Durack. Fig. 136 of Durack (below), which depicts a
`
`photo-damage sorting system, shows that the sheath fluid 19" enters the buffer
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`input channels, which are placed on either side of the first input channel carrying
`
`the carrier fluid 17":
`
`
`
`Durack, thus, discloses that the buffer solution is placed in channels on all sides of
`
`the channel carrying the fluid mixtures. Patent Owner’s attempt to limit the
`
`disclosure of Durack to a single configuration in one figure should be rejected.
`
`If the Board’s construction is adopted, Durack similarly discloses two input
`
`channels surrounding a first input channel for supplying buffer similar to the ’395
`
`patent. Durack specifically discloses at least two input channels (radial bores 173
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`and 183) surrounding a first input channel (conduit 157) for supplying buffer
`
`(sheath fluid 19) similar to the ’395 patent.
`
`The annular space 167 surrounding the conduit 157 is connected by
`
`means of a radial bore 173 in the flow body 133 to the fluid delivery
`
`system 15 for delivery of sheath fluid 19 into the annular space 167.
`
`As shown in FIGS. 3 and 5, an optional second radial bore 183 may
`
`be provided in the flow body 133 connecting the annular space 167 to
`
`another line (not shown) for supply of additional sheath fluid 19 to the
`
`nozzle 137.
`
`Ex. 1005, 33:3-14 (emphasis added). Again, the two buffer channels or bores are
`
`exemplified in Figure 5:
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the two input channels 173 and 183 are
`
`placed on either side of the first input channel 157 as required by the claim
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`language of the ’395 patent. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1c2. The Board
`
`construed this limitation to mean that “said plurality of buffer channels” are
`
`“disposed on one or the other, or one and the other of the two longer bounding
`
`surfaces of the input channel.” Decision 7-8. Again, Patent Owner argues that the
`
`two buffer channels disclosed in Fig. 5 of Durack are not on the same side and not
`
`on opposite sides, but on “adjacent” sides. Resp. 7-8. First, Fig. 136 of Durack
`
`(see above) shows at least two buffer input channels on either side of the first input
`
`channel carrying the fluid mixture. Second, in Fig. 5 of Durack, the two buffer
`
`channels 173 and 183 are disposed on one side of the input channel 157 but can
`
`also be disposed on one and the other of the two longer bounding surfaces of the
`
`input channel. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1c2. The particular arrangement
`
`will depend on how the cross-section of the input channel 157 is halved or
`
`bisected. For example, if buffer channel 173 is considered to be at the 9 am
`
`position and buffer channel 183 is considered to be at the 6 am position, the
`
`channels may be on the same side or on opposite sides, depending on where the
`
`bisection line is placed in the circular cross-section. If bisected at the 10 am and 4
`
`am positions as in Fig. 1 below, the buffer channels are on the same side. If
`
`bisected at the 1:30 am and 7:30 am positions as in Fig. 2 below, the buffer
`
`channels are on opposite sides:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`
`The configuration of Fig. 1 exactly matches the claim limitation as construed by
`
`the Board—that is, the buffer channels 173 and 183 are disposed on one or the
`
`other of the two longer bounding surfaces of the input channel (157). In Fig. 2,
`
`buffer channels (173 and 183) are disposed on one and the other of the two longer
`
`bounding surfaces of the input channel (157).
`
`Therefore, Durack discloses a “plurality of buffer channels which are
`
`disposed on either side of said first input channel.”
`
`B. Durack discloses additional flows having a flow direction along a
`length of the apparatus from one end to another end
`
`Durack discloses several examples wherein a first flow (flow stream) and
`
`additional flows (sheath fluid flows) have a flow direction along a length of the
`
`apparatus from one end to another end of the apparatus. For example, Fig. 2 and
`
`Fig. 135 of Durack show that sheath fluid 19 (inside radial bores 173 and 183)2
`
`flows in the same direction as the fluid stream 21 (inside the input channel 157).
`
`2 The radial bore lines carrying sheath fluid are numbered 173 and 183 in the
`
`specification but are not numbered in Fig. 2 of Durack.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`Fig. 2 specifically shows that the sheath fluid (19) in the radial bore lines flows
`
`alongside and in the same direction as the fluid stream (21) in the input channel
`
`(157) 3 along the length of the apparatus. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, 1d. Although
`
`unnumbered, Fig. 135 similarly shows that the sheath fluid travels in the same
`
`direction as the fluid stream until the cells along the length of the apparatus are
`
`separated into separate receptacles (127). Id.
`
`Patent Owner primarily argues that the sheath fluid’s direction of flow “after
`
`it has exited” the buffer input channels is excluded from the claim language;
`
`however, that argument contradicts the claim language and the preferred
`
`
`
`
`3 The input channel 157 is also referred to as the injection needle.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`embodiment of the ’395 patent. First, the claim language requires only that the
`
`flow of the sheath fluid “have a flow direction along a length of the apparatus
`
`from one end to another end of the apparatus.” Patent Owner erroneously focuses
`
`on the component that introduces the sheath fluid to the apparatus and ignores the
`
`direction of flow after introduction to the apparatus and through the apparatus. It is
`
`the flow of the sheath fluid after introduction that is critical under the claim
`
`language. Under a proper interpretation of the claim limitation, there is no dispute
`
`that Durack discloses flow of sheath fluid along a length of the apparatus.
`
`Second, the preferred embodiment, as shown in Fig. 18 of the ’395 patent
`
`(depicting a 3D drawing of the sorting device), shows that the buffer solution is
`
`initially introduced perpendicular to the flow along the length of the apparatus:
`
`Even in the two-dimensional plane, the flow of the buffer solution does not initially
`
`flow in the same direction along the length of the apparatus (nor does it end that
`
`
`
`way) as shown in Fig. 19 of the ’395 patent:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`
`This is the same configuration as disclosed in Durack. See Accent Packaging, Inc.
`
`v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A] claim
`
`interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is
`
`rarely, if ever, correct.”). In Fig. 2 and Fig. 135 of Durack, for example, the sheath
`
`fluid is initially introduced perpendicularly to the direction of flow along the length
`
`of the apparatus but flows in the same direction as the fluid stream along the length
`
`of the apparatus when it meets the fluid stream channel (as shown above).
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner’s argument that Durack does not meet this limitation is
`
`contradicted by the ’395 patent itself, which shows that along portions of the
`
`apparatus, the buffer solution flows in a different direction (even orthogonally).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the claim limitation must refer to “structural
`
`elements,” but that argument has no basis under the claim language. Resp. 12–13.
`
`Nonetheless, even under Patent Owner’s interpretation, the structural element that
`
`introduces the buffer solution to the apparatus is not what is claimed in this
`
`limitation. Because the “additional flows have a flow direction along a length of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`the apparatus,” the channels that carry the sheath fluid through the remainder of the
`
`apparatus would be the “structural elements” claimed. Durack discloses buffer
`
`channels that carry buffer solution in a direction along the length of the apparatus,
`
`and therefore, Durack’s disclosure meets the claim language even under Patent
`
`Owner’s interpretation.
`
`C. Durack discloses at least one channel disposed at another end of
`the apparatus after operation of the laser
`
`Durack meets the final limitation of claim 1 of the ’395 patent because it
`
`discloses both a capillary tube and a collection receptacle for receiving the “first
`
`flow” and the “additional flows” after operation of the laser. Both components are
`
`“channels” as described in the ’395 patent.
`
`
`1.
`
`The capillary tube of Durack is a “channel” under the final
`limitation of Claim 1
`
`Durack discloses a capillary tube, which is a channel that receives the
`
`combined streams of sample and sheath fluids after operation of the photo-damage
`
`laser. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1g. Patent Owner argues that the capillary
`
`tube disclosure cannot meet this claim limitation because (1) Durack does not
`
`disclose using a capillary tube with a photo-damage sorter, and (2) Durack does not
`
`show that the capillary tube receives the fluids after the photo-damage step.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`First, Durack specifically contemplates use of a capillary tube with the laser
`
`ablation embodiment. Fig. 135 of Durack, which depicts a diagram using a
`
`capillary tube, is described as follows:
`
`Fig. 135 illustrates an alternative nozzle system, generally designated
`
`1335, similar to that described above except that a capillary tube
`
`1337 (of quartz or fused silica, for example) is connected to the nozzle
`
`137 so that fluid exiting the nozzle orifice 103 is directed into and
`
`through the tube.
`
`Ex. 1005, 144:1-11 (emphasis added); Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1g. The
`
`specification then explains that for this “capillary tube” embodiment, the particles
`
`can be sorted “using any conventional techniques known to those skilled in the art,
`
`as by use of a fluid switching device shown in Fig. 137 or other suitable devices
`
`such as photo-damage systems or droplet sorting systems.” Ex. 1005, 144:12-15
`
`(emphasis added). Therefore, under Therasense, which Patent Owner cites,
`
`Durack expressly discloses the use of a capillary tube with a photo-damage system.
`
`593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Resp. 16. Patent Owner’s only argument is
`
`that “this passage cannot be read to imply that a capillary tube extending past the
`
`sorter to collect post-sort fluids could be used with all of these techniques,” and
`
`points specifically to a conventional droplet sorter system. Resp. 17 n.3. Patent
`
`Owner’s statement is, again, unsupported by testimony of one of skill and Patent
`
`Owner attempts to rebut Dr. Vacca with attorney argument. Further, Patent Owner
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`only directs its argument to a droplet sorter but fails to discuss the photo-damage
`
`system at issue here. Nothing in Durack (or any evidence cited by Patent Owner)
`
`shows that the photo-damage system could only be used with a sorting scheme that
`
`sorted in air. The bottom line is that one of skill in the art would have known that a
`
`capillary tube could be used with a photo-damage sorter based on the disclosure of
`
`Durack, which expressly discloses use of a capillary tube in conjunction with a
`
`photo-damage system.
`
`Second, Durack discloses that the channel—in this case, the capillary tube—
`
`receive the fluids after operation of the laser. In Fig. 136 (below), which shows a
`
`photo-damage system, the fluids are received by the receptacle 1355 after
`
`operation of the laser 1153.4 Again, the specification explains that in a capillary
`
`tube system (as shown in Fig. 137 below), “[a]fter the particles have been
`
`interrogated and classified, they may be sorted using any conventional techniques
`
`known to those skilled in the art, as by use of a fluid switching device shown in
`
`Fig. 137 or other suitable devices such as photo-damage systems or droplet sorting
`
`systems.” Ex. 1005, 144:12-15.
`
`
`4 The specification refers to the laser as 1353 but figure shows 1153. This
`
`appears to be a typo.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`
`
`Based on this disclosure, in combination with the rest of the teachings of Durack,
`
`one of skill in the art would substitute the laser 1153 of Fig. 136 for the fluid-
`
`switching device 1359 in Fig. 137. Therefore, in implementing a photo-damage
`
`system, the capillary tube in Durack is adapted to receive all fluids after operation
`
`of the laser.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Vacca explained precisely this—that the fluids are
`
`received after laser operation:
`
`In this case, capillary tube 1337 acts as the channel to receive
`
`combined fluid streams 21 and convey them to receptacles 127. . . .
`
`As discussed above with respect to 1.[e], the interrogation location
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`corresponds to the location at which the detector detects and identifies
`
`selected components from the sample cells. (Id. 32:9-16).
`
`Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶226, 1g. Therefore, Patent Owner’s assertions that Durack
`
`does not disclose receiving fluids after laser operation in a capillary tube system
`
`and that Dr. Vacca “does not address this argument, let alone support it,” are
`
`erroneous. Durack discloses use of a capillary tube as a channel to receive all
`
`flows after operation of the laser.
`
`Further, the Board’s broad interpretation of the final limitation of claim 1 in
`
`its priority analysis (Decision 13), provides further support for the fact that the
`
`capillary tube is a channel under the final limitation of claim 1. Specifically, the
`
`capillary tube receives fluids after operation of the laser because the same channel
`
`can be the location of the sorting process and the location for receiving all fluids.
`
`Under this broader interpretation, Durack discloses a sorting channel that “is
`
`adapted to receive said first flow and said additional flows after operation of said
`
`laser on said selected components.” Although Petitioner demonstrated that the
`
`final limitation of claim 1 is directed to an output channel that receives fluid
`
`sample and buffer solution after operation of the laser (Pet. 13), the Board has
`
`taken the position that the “at least one channel” of the final limitation “does not
`
`require combining flows into a single flow, and does not require a single output
`
`channel.” Decision 13 (emphasis added). The Board specifically cites to the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`sorting channel 110 or sorting region of Fig. 1 of the ’395 patent as one example of
`
`a channel covered by the final limitation. Under that interpretation, both the
`
`capillary tube and collection receptacle embodiments of Durack meet the final
`
`limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Fig. 136 of Durack shows a channel above the
`
`collection receptacle 1355 for receiving fluids after operation of the laser 1153.5
`
`Fig. 137 also shows a channel for receiving fluids after operation of a laser (laser
`
`not depicted) similar to the channel disclosed in Fig. 1 of the ’395 patent.
`
`
`
`
`5 See supra note 4.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`Therefore, under the Board’s broad construction in its priority analysis,
`
`Durack discloses the final limitation of claim 1.
`
`
`2.
`
`The collection receptacle of Durack is a “channel” under the
`final limitation of claim 1
`
`Durack discloses a channel (e.g., a collection receptacle) that receives the
`
`combined streams of sample and sheath fluids after operation of the photo-damage
`
`laser. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1g. Patent Owner’s only dispute is that
`
`under the Board’s construction, the “receptacle” in Durack is not a “channel”
`
`because it only “collects rather than conveys fluids.” Resp. 14. Patent Owner
`
`provides no support for its contention that a channel must “convey” and not
`
`“collect”—other than attorney argument. Nothing from the specification of the
`
`’395 patent is cited to support Patent Owner’s narrow reading. In fact, the Board’s
`
`construction of “channel” includes a receptacle like the one described in Durack.
`
`Specifically, the Board construed “channel” as a “long gutter, groove, or furrow.”
`
`Decision, 6-7. The receptacle described in Durack can be described as a gutter that
`
`receives and contains the combined fluids. See Vacca Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 226, 1g.
`
`As Dr. Vacca explained in his declaration, “[o]ne of the terms used” to “signify ‘a
`
`hollow member for conveying fluids’” is “‘receptacle,’ whose meaning is the same
`
`as in normal parlance, i.e., ‘one that receives and contains something.’” Id. Dr.
`
`Vacca further explained that in the case of Durack, “receptacle 1355 acts as the
`
`channel to receive the combined fluid streams 21.’’ Id. Although Patent Owner
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a “receptacle” to be a
`
`“channel,” it again offers nothing other than lawyer argument—providing no
`
`support from one skilled in the art.
`
`III. MUETH AND FRONTIN-ROLLET ALTERNATIVELY
`ANTICIPATE CLAIM 1 BECAUSE IT HAS A PRIORITY DATE OF
`JANUARY 31, 2014
`
`Because the Board has not made an affirmative finding that claim 1 is
`
`entitled to an effective filing date before March 16, 2013 (Decision, 13), the Board
`
`should now find that claim 1 is unsupported by the specification based on the
`
`Petition and Dr. Vacca’s expert declaration. This is particularly true if the Board
`
`finds that Durack does not disclose the final limitation of claim 1 for the reasons
`
`advanced by Patent Owner. Specifically, Patent Owner’s argument that the channel
`
`of the final limitation is an output channel and that the photo-damaging step in
`
`Durack would have to occur inside the nozzle, supports Petitioner’s priority
`
`argument. Resp. 17-18. As shown below, if the final limitation of claim 1 requires
`
`an output channel, as Patent Owner advances, then claim 1 is not entitled to an
`
`effective filing date before January 31, 2014, and therefore, Mueth and Frontin-
`
`Rollet are anticipating references that invalidate claim 1.
`
`A. The final element of claim 1 is not entitled to a filing date earlier
`than January 31, 2014
`
`Claim 1 of the ’395 patent was first disclosed in a preliminary amendment
`
`on January 31, 2014—the earliest priority date it is entitled to. See Ex. 1013,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`Prelim. Amend., 4-8. The specification of the ’395 patent, which dates back to
`
`September 3, 2004, at the earliest, does not offer written description support for the
`
`final limitation of claim 1.
`
`
`1.
`
`The specification fails to expressly or inherently disclose a
`single channel for receiving all flows
`
`The ’395 patent specification never discloses a single channel capable of
`
`receiving all the flows after the sorting step. As explained in the Petition, the final
`
`limitation of claim 1 specifically requires “at least one channel disposed at said 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.” Pet. 8; Ex. 1001, 44:58-
`
`62 (emphasis added). Patent Owner, through its arguments on Durack, takes the
`
`position that the final limitation requires an apparatus where all the flows (fluid
`
`sample and buffer solution) are combined into a single output channel. The Board
`
`stated that such an interpretation is “premised on an incorrect reading of claim 1”
`
`because “claim 1 does not require combining flows into a single flow, and does not
`
`require a single output channel.” Decision 13. The Board cites to Fig. 1 as
`
`support, stating that the final limitation is “disclosed sufficiently” by the “sorting
`
`channel 110.” Id. at 14.
`
`Under Patent Owner’s interpretation, the Board’s position that the claimed
`
`channel of the final limitation can be a “sorting channel,” would contradict the
`
`express language requiring that the claimed channel “receive said first flow and
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`said additional flows after operation of said laser on said selected components.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 44:60-61 (emphasis added). The sorting channel 110 of Fig. 1 is the
`
`location where a laser would operate—selectively killing undesired cells—after
`
`which the various fluids would flow to output channels (130). Ex. 1001, 13:20-28,
`
`Fig. 1. Because the claimed channel of the final limitation receives all the flows
`
`after operation of the laser, it would have to be an output channel (or outlet).
`
`Therefore, the single “sorting channel” of Fig. 1 would not be a sufficient
`
`disclosure of the final limitation of claim 1 under Patent Owner’s theory. See e.g.,
`
`Decision 14 (relying on disclosure of “sorting channel” in specification as
`
`support); see also Power Oasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that where the USPTO did not consider priority of a
`
`claim, there is no presumption that is entitled to an earlier priority date than the
`
`date of filing).
`
`As demonstrated in the Petition, the specification of the ’395 patent does not
`
`disclose a single output channel that is capable of receiving all flows. See Pet. 12-
`
`18. The specification does not expressly or inherently disclose the use of one
`
`output channel in the claimed invention that would allow one skilled in the art to
`
`readily recognize the disclosure. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ’395 patent should
`
`not be entitled to a priority date earlier than January 31, 2014.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`As a final matter, Patent Owner’s attempt to fault Petitioner for not “timely
`
`supplement[ing]” its argument on the priority issue after the Court’s Institution
`
`Decision is contrary to the rules and procedures for proceedings before this Board.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should have supplemented its argument after
`
`the Institution Decision and under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223. First, that regulation allows
`
`the Petitioner to provide the Board with additional documents the Petitioner was
`
`unaware of until after the Petition was filed or after seeing the Patent Owner’s
`
`response. CBM2014-00100, Paper 18, at 1; CBM2012-00007, Paper 28, at 2-3.
`
`That is not the case here. Second, even if applicable, the regulation is not a
`
`mandatory requirement. CBM2013-00014, Paper 18, at 3; CBM2014-00156,
`
`Paper 40, at 35. Patent Owner’s statement, therefore, has no basis, and this Reply
`
`is the first and appropriate place to respond to both the Board’s decision and the
`
`Patent Owner’s response.
`
`B. Mueth and Frontin-Rollet anticipate claim 1
`
`Because claim 1 is not entitled to a priority date earlier than January 31,
`
`2014, both Mueth and Frontin-Rollet are prior art. The Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute that Mueth and Frontin-Rollet disclose each limitation of claim 1, and
`
`therefore, each individually renders claim 1 invalid.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in the Petition, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that claim 1 of the ’395 patent be canceled. Additionally, the
`
`Board should cancel claims 2–14 based on Patent Owner’s affirmative disclaimer
`
`of those claims. See Resp. 1.
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kirt S. O’Neill
`Kirt S. O’Neill
`USPTO Reg. No. 38,257
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
`HAUER & FELD LLP
`300 Convent Street, Suite 1600
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`Telephone: (210) 281-7000
`Facsimile: (210) 224-2035
`koneill@akingump.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Reply was served on counsel of record on June 22, 2016, by filing this document
`
`through the Patent Review Processing System, as well as delivering a copy via e-
`
`mail to the counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`jkushan@sidley.com
`peter.choi@sidley.com
`mjorgenson@sidley.com
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2016 By: /s/ Kirt S. O’Neil
`Kirt S. O’Neill
`Reg. No. 38,257
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00017
`U.S. Patent 8,933,395
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.24
`
`This paper complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. §42.24.
`
`The paper contains 4,234 words, excluding the parts of the paper exempted by
`
`§42.24(c).
`
`This paper also complied with the typeface requirements with the typeface
`
`requirements 37 C,F,R, §42.6(a)(ii) and the type style requirements of § 42.6(a)(iii)
`
`& (iv).
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2016 By: /s/ Kirt S. O’Neil
`Kirt S. O’Neill
`Reg. No. 38,257
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`24