Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01485/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Respironics, Inc.
Appellant
Zoll Medical Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RESPIRONICS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1485

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00322.

______________________ 

Decided: July 29, 2016

______________________ 

 DENISE WHELTON DEFRANCO, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Boston, MA, argued for 

appellant. Also represented by CLARA N. JIMENEZ, JASON 

LEE ROMRELL, Washington, DC.

 RICHARD BIRNHOLZ, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by DAVID 

GINDLER; KEVIN JON DEJONG, Fish & Richardson, P.C., 

Boston, MA; JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Minneapolis, MN; JOHN 

C. PHILLIPS, San Diego, CA.

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/29/2016
2 RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

______________________ 

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

This case arises from an inter partes review that 

Respironics, Inc. filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,681,003, 

owned by Zoll Medical Corporation. Respironics alleges 

that International Patent Publication No. WO 98/39061 to 

Owen et al. anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, and 

20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). The Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board found claim 1 unpatentable as 

anticipated and claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, and 20 not 

anticipated and therefore patentable. Respironics, Inc. v. 

Zoll Medical Corp., IPR2013-00322, 2014 WL 4715644, at 

*15 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2014) (Board Opinion). Respironics 

appeals on all claims that the Board found patentable. 

We agree with Respironics that the Board erred, vacate, 

and remand for further consideration.

BACKGROUND

The ’003 patent addresses wearable medical devices 

that can record and remotely communicate a patient’s

medical information. Such a device might take the form, 

for example, of a wearable heart monitor, defibrillator, or 

insulin pump and might communicate measurements 

about the patient’s medical status and use of the device to 

his doctor. Claim 2 is exemplary and addresses a method 

including providing a patient with a wearable medical 

device that monitors his medical information, transmitting it over a communications system to a database, and 

then providing access to it: 

2. A method of monitoring patient medical information for the treatment of a patient, the method 

comprising the steps of:

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/29/2016
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 3

providing a wearable medical device for 

treating the patient and monitoring patient medical information;

operatively connecting the medical device 

to the patient such that the medical device 

is worn by the patient;

recording the patient medical information, 

device performance data and patient compliance data in a storage means of the 

medical device;

operatively connecting the medical device 

to a communications system;

transmitting the patient medical information, device performance data and patient compliance data to a health care 

provider by means of said communications 

system and recording the patient medical 

information, device performance data and 

patient compliance data in an information 

database, wherein said transmitting step 

is performed while the medical device is 

operatively connected to the patient for 

providing treatment to the patient; and

providing access to the patient medical information, device performance data and 

patient compliance data to individuals.

Independent claims 4 and 19 are similar but include 

means-plus-function limitations. Notably for our purposes, claims 2, 4, and 19 all contain requirements for the 

types of medical information that is transmitted: claim 2 

requires this information to include (1) “patient medical 

information,” (2) “device performance data,” and (3) 

“patient compliance data”; claim 4 requires it to include 

(1) “operations information of the medical device” and (2) 

“patient compliance and use data”; and claim 19 requires 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/29/2016
4 RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

it to include (1) “patient medical parameters,” (2) “device 

performance data,” and (3) “patient compliance data.” In 

order to anticipate all claims, a prior-art reference must 

disclose, among other things, that the medical information it transmits satisfies all of these categories. The 

parties’ dispute in this appeal centers on whether the 

Owen reference discloses “patient compliance data.” 

Because each claim contains the limitation “patient 

compliance data” (or “patient compliance and use data,” 

which the parties agree we need not consider separately), 

any prior-art reference that anticipates all claims must 

disclose transmitting medical information that qualifies 

as “patient compliance data.” Dependent claims 5, 8, 9, 

and 16 depend on claim 4 and thus incorporate its “patient compliance data” limitation. Claim 20 depends on 

claim 19 and incorporates its similar limitation. Claim 1 

does not include any particular requirements for the type 

of medical information transmitted and therefore requires 

no disclosure of “patient compliance data.”

Owen discloses a wearable medical device that combines a heart monitor and a defibrillator. This device 

measures a patient’s heart rhythms and determines 

whether he is conscious. When the information it monitors indicates the patient requires defibrillation, it administers a shock. The Board found Owen to disclose that

this device stores medical information and transmits it 

over a network to a central computer, where a doctor can 

review it. Board Opinion at *7. Owen discloses various 

types of medical information that its device stores and 

transmits. One type of information relates to a button 

that the patient can push to cancel a shock. Owen at 

33:2–8. If the device detects an abnormal cardiac rhythm 

requiring defibrillation, it plays an audio message requesting that the patient press the button. Id. at 48:33–

49:25. If the patient is unconscious, he cannot press the 

button, and the defibrillator will administer a shock. Id. 

If he is conscious, he will press the button and cancel the 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/29/2016
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 5

shock. Id. The device logs and transmits information 

about the patient’s presses of this response button. Board 

Opinion at *6. Another type of information involves the 

length of time the doctor recommends the patient wear 

the device. When a patient wears the device for longer 

than recommended, the device shows a message noting 

that the patient has exceeded the recommended wear 

time, logs this condition, and transmits this log information. Owen at 31:42–32, 35:10–17.

The Board first found that Owen anticipates claim 1, 

rendering it unpatentable. Next, it turned to the remaining claims, each of which contains the requirement that 

the data stored and transmitted include “patient compliance data.” It construed this term to mean “data indicating whether a patient has followed instructions for use.” 

Board Opinion at *4. It found Owen not to disclose this 

type of data. It reasoned that Owen’s disclosure of data 

related to the patient’s presses of the response button did 

not qualify because Respironics had not pointed to any 

evidence that the Owen device also stored information 

showing that the patient had been prompted to press the 

button. Id. at *9. If the data did not indicate the patient 

had been prompted, the Board reasoned, it could not 

indicate that he was following instructions when he 

pressed the button. Id. And, similarly, it found that 

because Owen did not disclose informing the patient what 

the recommended wear time is, the log the device creates 

when the patient exceeds this recommendation cannot

qualify. Id. Again, the Board reasoned that without 

indicating that the patient had been told to take the 

device off after a specific amount of time, the data could 

not show that the patient had failed to comply with weartime instructions. Id. The Board found Owen not to 

disclose “patient compliance data” and therefore not to 

anticipate independent claims 4 and 19. Because it found 

claims 4 and 19 not anticipated, it also found the various 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/29/2016
6 RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

claims depending on them—claims 5, 8, 9, 16, and 20—

not anticipated.

Zoll does not appeal from the Board’s finding that its 

claim 1 is unpatentable. Respironics appeals from the 

Board’s findings that claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, and 20

are patentable over the Owen reference. We agree with 

Respironics that the Board erred in finding Owen not to 

disclose “patient compliance data.” We vacate the Board’s 

finding of no anticipation, and we remand so that the 

Board may consider in the first instance whether Owen 

discloses all remaining elements of the claims.

ANALYSIS

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 141(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

The issue at the heart of this appeal is one of claim 

construction: whether the Board impermissibly modified 

its construction of “patient compliance data” when it 

applied that construction to Owen’s disclosures. We 

review the Board’s ultimate claim constructions and 

findings about the intrinsic record de novo, and its findings based on the extrinsic record for substantial evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 

1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 833 (2015)). The parties 

agree that we need not consider any extrinsic evidence to 

decide the appealed claim-construction issues. The Board 

applies a broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard 

when construing claims in an inter partes review. Cuozzo 

Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016).

In its institution decision, the Board found the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “patient compliance data” to be “data indicating whether a patient has 

followed instructions for use.” Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll 

Medical Corp., IPR2013-00322, 2013 WL 8563952, at *4 

(Dec. 2, 2013). The Board noted in its final decision that 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/29/2016
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 7

it would maintain this construction. Board Opinion at *4. 

Respironics had initially proposed a different construction 

but, after the Board first construed the term in its institution decision, Respironics has not challenged that construction, either before the Board or before us. What

Respironics challenges is the Board’s application of its 

own construction. In Respironics’ view, although the 

Board’s construction was proper, the Board added improper limitations when it applied that construction. We 

have recognized such a challenge to an application of a 

construction. See In re Abbot Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 

1142, 1150–51 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Intervet Inc. v. Merial 

Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1289–90 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Our analysis of this issue includes two components: first, we determine whether the Board added a limitation when it 

applied the construction; second, we determine whether 

that limitation is appropriate under claim-construction 

law. Id. 

First, we find that the Board added a limitation when 

it applied its construction. Its initial construction—that 

“patient compliance data” is “data indicating whether a 

patient has followed instructions for use”—incorporates 

no specific requirement relating to the instructions for 

use. The Board did not take issue with Respironics’ 

showings that Owen disclosed playing an audio message 

requesting that the patient press a button and storing 

information about button presses. Instead, it required 

more: evidence that the reference disclosed a system for 

“assur[ing] that every, or indeed any, recorded button 

push was performed in response to an instruction.” Board 

Opinion at *9 (emphasis removed). Specifically, it examined whether the reference disclosed “record[ing] the time 

at which the [instruction] is given to the patient.” Id. In 

doing so, it added a limitation not present in its construction: that the device store information not just about 

patient compliance but also about instructions it gave the 

patient. This additional limitation represents a modificaCase: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/29/2016
8 RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

tion to its construction. The Board repeated this error 

when it considered Respironics’ alternative argument that 

Owen’s disclosure of storing an indication that the patient 

had worn the device for longer than recommended additionally satisfied the “patient compliance data” limitation. 

It rejected this argument not because Owen failed to 

disclose recording when a patient has exceeded the recommended wear time, but because it did not disclose 

instructing the patient what the recommended wear time

is. Id. Without a disclosure of giving the patient a weartime instruction, the Board reasoned, a record that the 

patient had exceeded a particular wear time could not 

qualify as data indicating that the patient had or had not 

complied with any particular instruction. Id. Here, 

again, the Board modified its construction to impose a 

requirement that the device store data about the instructions it gave to the patient 

Second, we find that claim-construction law does not 

support the additional limitation that the Board added to 

its construction to require particular disclosures about the 

instructions given to the patient. As we have previously 

made clear, the fact that an unclaimed element may be 

necessary for a device to function as claimed does not, 

standing alone, allow courts to treat the unclaimed element as a claim limitation. See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l 

Trade Com’n., 601 F.3d 1319, 1330 (2010). In SiRF, we 

addressed a method claim1 including steps of “transmitting” data to a remote receiver and processing it in a 

particular way at the remote receiver. Id. In this system, 

in order to transmit data to a remote receiver and then 

process it there, one must send the data to an intermedi-

 

1 We addressed an additional, similar claim in SiRF 

and reached the same conclusion on that claim. SiRF 

Tech., 601 F.3d at 1330. We leave it out of our analysis to 

streamline our discussion.

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/29/2016
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 9

ary server, which then forwards the data to the remote 

receiver for it to be downloaded there. The defendant 

asked us to construe the claim to require these additional 

steps of “forwarding” and “downloading” the data. Id. We 

rejected this argument, holding that although these steps 

were necessary to carry out the claimed “transmitting” 

step, they were not claimed and thus did not act as limitations. Id. This precedent applies here as well. The 

claimed concept of storing patient compliance data may be 

possible only if the patient is provided instructions with 

which he can comply. But this fact alone does not elevate 

the instructions or any information about them to the 

level of a claim limitation. The Board’s additional requirement that the device give the patient particular 

instructions or store particular information about the 

instructions given to the patient therefore finds no place 

in the “patient compliance data” claim term. Neither the 

Board nor Zoll cites anything else in the claims or the 

record to support this additional limitation. We therefore 

reject the modification that the Board made in applying 

its construction to require the device to store information 

related to instructions given to the patient.

The Board’s opinion makes clear that Owen anticipates the “patient compliance data” limitation under its 

original construction. The Board found Owen to disclose 

that the device plays an audio message instructing the

patient to press a button. Board Opinion at *5. It further 

found Owen to disclose storing records of patient interaction with the defibrillator, including information about 

button presses. Id. at *5–6. These two factual findings 

show that the Owen device stores “patient compliance 

data” under the Board’s original, correct construction. We 

therefore reverse the Board’s determination that Owen 

does not meet the “patient compliance data” claim limitation.

Because we find that the Board erred when it applied 

its construction of “patient compliance data,” we need not 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 9 Filed: 07/29/2016
10 RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

reach Respironics’ alternative arguments that Owen 

discloses “patient compliance data” even under the 

Board’s construction.

The Board based its rejection of Respironics’ anticipation arguments for independent claims 2, 4, and 19 and 

dependent claims 5, 8, 9, 16, and 20 solely on its determination that Owen did not disclose anything qualifying as

“patient compliance data.” For claim 2, it found Owen not 

to disclose “patient compliance data” and therefore not to 

satisfy the claim limitations requiring “recording . . . 

patient compliance data in a storage means of the medical 

device,” “transmitting the . . . patient compliance data,” 

“recording the . . . patient compliance data in an information database,” and “providing access to the . . . patient 

compliance data.” For independent claims 4 and 19, it 

found Owen not to satisfy the means-plus function elements “means for monitoring and storing . . . patient 

compliance data” or “means for transmitting the . . . 

patient compliance data.” The Board found that, whether 

or not Owen disclosed structures satisfying these elements’ structural limitations, any structure it disclosed 

would not monitor, store, or transmit “patient compliance 

data” and would therefore not satisfy their functional 

limitations. The Board then found that, because Owen 

failed to anticipate independent claims 2, 4, and 19, it 

could not anticipate dependent claims 5, 8, 9, 16, and 20. 

The Board noted various factual findings about what 

Owen disclosed. But, because the Board found the “patient compliance data” limitations to dispose of the inquiry before it on all claims but claim 1, it did not need to 

apply those factual findings to determine whether Owen 

satisfies the remaining claim limitations of those claims. 

Based on our holding that Owen satisfies the “patient 

compliance data” limitations, we remand to the Board so 

that it may determine whether Owen satisfies those 

remaining limitations. 

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 10 Filed: 07/29/2016
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 11

CONCLUSION

We hold that the Board erred in finding that the Owen reference does not disclose “patient compliance data.” 

Based on this error, we vacate the Board’s decision rejecting Respironics’ anticipation arguments as to claims 2, 4, 

5, 8, 9, 16, 19, and 20. We remand this case to the Board 

so that it may consider whether Owen satisfies these 

claims’ remaining limitations.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1485 Document: 45-2 Page: 11 Filed: 07/29/2016