Patent Owner cites the Examiner’s Notice of Allowance, where the Examiner stated that Lai “fails to disclose the additional combination of a second slidable body, needle and compression spring as claimed,” and “[t]he prior art of record fails to make obvious these missing features.” Id. at 70 (quoting Ex. 1002, 467), 75.
Patent 10,945,649 B2 Gravesen discloses various embodiments that allow quick penetration and withdrawal of the needle while the inserted cannula simultaneously remains within the body tissue, such that the patient experiences a more comfortable sensation.
On this record, Petitioner, supported by Dr. Fletcher’s testimony, sufficiently establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “looking to minimize pain by providing automatic needle-based insertion of a medical device (such as a glucose sensor [as taught in Brister]) would have logically considered Gravesen’s apparatus.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 23; Pet. 4.
In particular, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Gravesen’s lever 211 to comprise a cylindrical rotor received within a recess of the housing, as allegedly taught by Yodfat.
Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Yodfat’s recess into Gravesen’s housing because it would “give[] the advantage of allowing the user to load the torsion spring themselves ... at the desired time,” thereby preventing unintentional or premature firing of the insertion device.