Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01584/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01584-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation
Appellant
Andrei Iancu
Intervenor
Nevro Corp.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC NEUROMODULATION 

CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

NEVRO CORP.,

Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2019-1584

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01899.

______________________

Decided: May 18, 2020

______________________

MATTHEW WOLF, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 

Washington, DC, for appellant. Also represented by 

ANDREW TUTT; DAVID A. CAINE, Palo Alto, CA. 

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2020
2 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP.

 JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC,

Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by CHINGLEE FUKUDA, SHARON LEE, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, 

NY; RYAN C. MORRIS, Washington, DC. 

 MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE,

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,587,241 unpatentable as obvious. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Boston Scientific owns the ’241 patent, which discloses 

methods for controlling an implantable medical device by

enabling or disabling certain features based on the voltage 

of its internal power source. ’241 Patent at 13:11–54. In 

one embodiment, if the voltage drops below a particular 

threshold, the receiver continues to listen for telemetry 

from the external charging component, but stops listening 

for telemetry from other external components. Id. Telemetry from the external components may be transmitted via 

a bidirectional telemetry link “known as the FSK (Frequency Shift Key) telemetry link, or RF telemetry link.” Id.

at 8:56–58. The external charging component may also include a forward telemetry link that “may use OOK-PWM 

(On/Off Keying – Pulse Width Modulation), and is typically 

an inductive telemetry link.” Id. at 8:58–61. Claim 1 recites:

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2020
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 3

1. A method for controlling an implantable medical

device, comprising:

monitoring a voltage of a power source within the

implantable medical device;

if the voltage is above a first threshold, enabling

the following functions:

listening for a first type of telemetry from a first 

external component;

listening for a second type of telemetry from an 

external charging component, wherein the external charging component is used to wirelessly 

charge the power source; and

providing stimulation to device electrodes using the power source; and

if the voltage falls below the first threshold, discontinuing listening for the first type of telemetry from 

the first external component and discontinuing 

providing stimulation to device electrodes using 

the power source, while continuing listening for the 

second type of telemetry.

’241 patent at 20:28–46 (emphases added).

Nevro Corporation petitioned for inter partes review of 

claims 1–20 of the ’241 patent. The Board instituted review

of all challenged claims and held that: (1) claims 1, 3–8, 10–

14, and 16–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in 

view of U.S. Patent. No. 6,453,198 (Torgerson ’198), U.S. 

Patent No. 7,167,756 (Torgerson ’756), and U.S. Patent No. 

6,456,883 (Torgerson ’883); and (2) claims 2, 9, and 15 are 

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Torgerson 

’198, Torgerson ’756, Torgerson ’883, and U.S Patent No. 

6,647,298 (Abrahamson). Boston Scientific timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A).

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2020
4 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP.

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo 

and its factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Van 

Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Obviousness is 

a question of law based on underlying facts” such as the 

scope and content of the prior art. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017). 

I. Claims 1, 3–8, 10–14, and 16–20

1. “listening for . . . telemetry” 

The Board construed “telemetry” as the “transmission 

of data or information . . . in the form of a transmission of 

energy (power).” J.A. 18. It clarified that “telemetry does 

not include an unmodulated transmission of energy 

(power).” Id. Under this construction, the Board found 

that Torgerson ’883’s disclosure of a charging circuit receiving telemetry from a telemetry signal teaches the claimed 

step of listening for the second type of telemetry. J.A. 42–

43. 

Boston Scientific argues that the Board erred in construing “telemetry” and what it means to “listen[] for . . . 

telemetry,” and therefore that substantial evidence does 

not support the Board’s finding. While Boston Scientific

agrees with the Board that “telemetry” means “data or information,” it contends that “listening for . . . telemetry” 

means that “a specialized receiver is ready to receive data 

or information transmitted to it from a specialized transmitter.” Appellant’s Br. 36. Boston Scientific did not propose a construction for, and the Board did not separately 

construe, “listening for . . . telemetry.” 

Nevro contends that Boston Scientific waived any 

claim construction argument as to “listening for . . . telemetry” by failing to raise it before the Board. We agree. The 

Board construed “telemetry” in its Institution Decision,

providing Boston Scientific ample opportunity to offer a 

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2020
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 5

construction for the “listening for” term in its patent owner 

response. The Board’s Institution Decision also preliminarily determined that Torgerson ’883 discloses a “second 

telemetry from an external charging component . . .” under 

its construction. The Board’s finding in its Final Written 

Decision that Torgerson ’883’s charging circuit teaches “listening for a second type of telemetry” by “draw[ing] energy 

(power) from the modulated electromagnetic 

waves . . . transmitted to it” was therefore not an unexpected construction of “listening for telemetry” as Boston 

Scientific contends. Appellant’s Reply Br. 9 (citing J.A. 42–

43, 48–49). Accordingly, we hold that Boston Scientific 

waived any claim construction argument as to “listening 

for . . . telemetry” and we do not address the parties’ arguments as to the construction of this term or whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding under 

Boston Scientific’s proposed construction. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Torgerson ’883 discloses listening for a second type of telemetry under the Board’s construction. J.A. 41. Figure 2 

of Torgerson ’883 “illustrates that a telemetry signal 10 interacts directly with a charging circuit 20 and a controller 

90.” J.A. 1144 at 5:18–20. Torgerson ’883 further discloses 

that “[t]he telemetry signal 10 also interacts with the controller 90 to deliver and receive patient and device data.” 

Id. at 5:23–24. Thus, the signal in Torgerson ’883 meets 

the Board’s construction that the telemetry signal include 

data (e.g., modulated electromagnetic waves). J.A. 42–43. 

As the Board found, “[t]he fact that charging circuit 20 

draws energy (power) from the modulated electromagnetic 

waves that make for the ‘telemetry’ signals does not change

the fact that it uses the ‘telemetry’ signals transmitted to 

it.” J.A. 43.

2. “type of telemetry”

The Board found that Torgerson ’756 discloses a telemetry unit that listens for a first type of telemetry from an 

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2020
6 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP.

external physician programmer and patient programmer. 

The Board further found that “Torgerson ’756 covers the 

use of a second type of telemetry for battery charging operations.” J.A. 39 (emphasis in original). Boston Scientific 

argues that the latter finding is not supported by substantial evidence. It contends that Torgerson ’756 discloses 

only one type of telemetry—inductive telemetry—and 

therefore Torgerson ’756 does not disclose a second type of 

telemetry. 

Torgerson ’756 discloses a telemetry unit that listens 

for a first type of telemetry. Nevro argues that Torgerson 

’756’s recharge module, which uses “other communication 

techniques” to communicate with an external charger, uses 

a second type of telemetry. The recharge module comprises 

a recharge regulation control unit that “communicates with 

[an] external component via telemetry unit 305.” J.A. 1129

at 7:41–45; J.A. 1130 at 9:46–47. Torgerson ’756 further

discloses the implementation of “other communication 

techniques” where “recharge regulation control unit 525 

communicates with the external component by modulating 

the load on the recharge coil[, which] can then be sensed in 

the circuitry driving the source coil of the external component.” J.A. 1130 at 9:48–53. There is nothing in the ’241 

patent specification that precludes this communication

technique from constituting a second “type of telemetry” 

merely because it is not a different type of energy transfer 

modality. Indeed, Boston Scientific’s expert, Dr. Ronald 

Berger testified that “it is the modulation of the electromagnetic wave that makes it a telemetry link.” J.A. 1416 

¶ 33. Dr. Berger also testified that “it is possible that the 

Torgerson ’756 may use two types of telemetry . . . for the 

internal device to communicate outward to the external device.” J.A. 1317 at 140:17–20. We therefore hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the

recharge regulation control unit employs a second type of 

telemetry to communicate the change in load to the external component. J.A. 38. 

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 6 Filed: 05/18/2020
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 7

3. Combination of Torgerson References

Boston Scientific argues that substantial evidence does 

not support the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would 

have been motivated to modify Torgerson ’198 and Torgerson ’756 in view of Torgerson ’883 to create a device that 

listens for two types of telemetry. We do not agree. As 

discussed above, Torgerson ’756 discloses the implementation of “other communication techniques” where “recharge 

regulation control unit 525 communicates with the external component.” J.A. 1130 at 9:48–53. It further discloses 

that when “the power source 315 is almost depleted of energy, the power source 315 may not have sufficient energy 

to provide the feedback control” and, therefore, “the external component may deliver an initial large burst of energy 

to ‘wake up’ the power source 315 and the recharge module 

310.” J.A. 1129 at 8:62–67. Dr. Berger stated that the 

wake up burst in Torgerson ’756 “may be the same wake 

up burst” as the one in Torgerson ’883. J.A. 1321 at 144:8–

16. We therefore agree with the Board that “[g]iven that 

Torgerson ’883 employs a telemetry technique to deliver a 

‘wake up’ burst, which Torgerson ’756 also discloses and is 

perhaps the same ‘wake up’ burst, . . . adequate motivation 

has been provided for a POSA to look to Torgerson ’883 for 

another technique (involving telemetry) to deliver a ‘wake 

up’ burst with respect to the charging component of Torgerson ’756.” J.A. 50.

Accordingly, we hold that the Board did not err in holding that claims 1, 3–8, 10–14, and 16–20 would have been 

obvious over the combined teachings of Torgerson ’198, 

Torgerson ’756, and Torgerson ’883. 

II. Claims 2, 9, and 15

Claims 2, 9, and 15 limit independent claims 1, 8, and 

14, respectively by reciting: “wherein the first telemetry 

type comprises Frequency Shift Keying (FSK), and wherein 

the second telemetry type comprises On/Off Keying 

(OOK).” Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 7 Filed: 05/18/2020
8 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP.

that it would have been obvious to use FSK for the first 

type of telemetry and OOK for the second type of telemetry. 

J.A. 55. 

Torgerson ’198 and Torgerson ’756 disclose that telemetry modules, such as telemetry module 305, are “generally 

known in the art.” J.A. 1114 at 6:12–20, 6:28–36; J.A. 1128 

at 6:50–59. Abrahamson discloses the use of FSK and OOK 

telemetry units. J.A. 1156 at 1:14–21 (“In RF coupled systems, . . . [t]he carrier signal is modulated with the data 

that are to be transmitted using an appropriate modulation 

scheme, such as . . . frequency shift keying (FSK) . . . .”); 

J.A. 1158 at 5:11–15 (“The exact duration of the time interval is dependent of the used signal modulation method . . . 

[such as] On Off Keying (OOK) . . . .”). Nevro’s expert, Dr. 

Mark Kroll, declared that “a POSA would have chosen the 

FSK modulation scheme for the communication between 

the telemetry module 305 and an external device for programming the INS 14 because FSK provides a higher bandwidth and thus a higher capacity to transmit useful 

information.” J.A. 1021 ¶ 181. He further testified that “a 

POSA would have chosen the OOK modulation scheme for 

communication between the recharge module 310 and an 

external device used for charging the INS 14 because that 

communication is typically simpler and can be fully 

achieved with the simpler OOK modulation scheme.” Id. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not err in 

holding that claims 2, 9, and 15 would have been obvious 

in view of the combined teachings of Torgerson ’198, Torgerson ’756, Torgerson ’883, and Abrahamson.

 CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and do not find them persuasive. Because the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm its 

holding that claims 1–20 of the ’241 patent are unpatentable as obvious. 

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 8 Filed: 05/18/2020
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 9

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 9 Filed: 05/18/2020