NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC,

Appellant

v.

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE 

FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2021-1115

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00738.

______________________ 

Decided: December 27, 2021

______________________ 

THOMAS H. WINTNER, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, for appellant. Also represented by PETER CUOMO; ADAM GAHTAN, Fenwick & West 

LLP, New York, NY. 

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 12/27/2021
2 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD

 ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA 

YASMEEN RASHEED, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN,

Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Quest Diagnostics Investments LLC (Quest) appeals a 

decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in 

IPR2019-00738 finding claims 1, 2, and 4–14 of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,409,862 (the ’862 patent) unpatentable as either anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Quest owns the ’862 patent, which claims priority to 

September 8, 2003 and is directed to using mass spectrometry to detect low levels of testosterone in female humans. 

See, e.g., ’862 patent col. 1 ll. 49–59, col. 5 ll. 50–65, claim 

1. The ’862 patent explains that “[t]estosterone levels are 

much lower in females compared to males” and “[t]he clinical manifestations of excess testosterone in females include infertility, hirsutism, amenorrhea, and obesity.” Id. 

col. 1 ll. 49–59. The ’862 patent further explains that testosterone can be purified prior to mass spectrometry, which 

can improve the limit of detection (i.e., the lowest amount 

of testosterone the method can detect). See, e.g., id. col. 3 

ll. 7–21. Accordingly, the ’862 patent claims methods for 

“determining the amount of testosterone in a sample” 

where a user purifies the testosterone prior to mass spectrometry. Id. at claim 1. However, the ’862 patent explicitly excludes derivatization of testosterone before mass 

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 12/27/2021
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD 3

spectrometry, the lack of which Quest argues offers improvements in ease of use.1 See id.

Claims 8 and 9, relevant here, depend upon claim 1 and 

further require “wherein the method is capable of detecting 

testosterone at concentrations of less than 5 ng/dL in the 

sample” and “less than 1 ng/dL in the sample,” respectively. Id. at claims 8–9.

On February 25, 2019, Laboratory Corporation of 

America Holdings (LabCorp) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 4–14 of the ’862 patent. J.A. 79, 

152. Relevant to this appeal, LabCorp asserted that claims 

8 and 9 would have been obvious in view of Clarke,2 or alternatively would have been obvious in view of Clarke in 

combination with Draisci.3

Clarke is an abstract found on a compact disc (CD) from 

the 49th annual conference of the American Society for 

Mass Spectrometry (ASMS) held in May 2001. J.A. 1356–

57. Clarke details a method for detecting low levels of testosterone and describes a method similar to the ’862 patent—wherein testosterone is purified before mass 

spectrometry. Lab’y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Quest 

1 Quest explains that derivatization of testosterone 

is one method to improve detection of testosterone using 

mass spectrometry. See Appellant’s Br. at 6–7. However, 

Quest contends that the derivatization process can be laborious and time consuming. See id.

2 Clarke, et al., Determination of Suppressed Testosterone Levels in Human Serum by LC-MS/MS, Proceedings of the 49th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry 

and Allied Topics, Chicago, Illinois, May 27–31, 2001.

3 Draisci, et al., Quantitation of anabolic hormones 

and their metabolites in bovine serum and urine by liquid 

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, 870 J.

CHROMATOGRAPHY A, 511–22 (2000).

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 12/27/2021
4 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD

Diagnostics Invs. LLC, 2020 WL 5224211, at *6–7 (P.T.A.B. 

Sept. 1, 2020). Clarke claims to detect testosterone down 

to 50 pg/mL—equivalent to 5 ng/dL.

C 

On September 1, 2020, the Board issued its Final Written Decision finding that claims 1, 2, and 4–14 would have 

been unpatentable as either obvious or anticipated. See id. 

at *1. Two of the Board’s findings are challenged here—

first, that Clarke was valid prior art as a printed publication and, second, that claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious in light of Clarke or Clarke in combination with 

Draisci.

As to whether Clarke is a printed publication, the 

Board found Clarke was publicly available and therefore a 

prior art printed publication. Specifically, the Board recognized that the ASMS sent a CD containing Clarke to 

thousands of ASMS members, and that the CD was available in the University of Wisconsin-Madison library before 

the priority date of the ’862 patent. See id. at *8–10. Further, the Board noted that although Clarke appeared 

alongside approximately 1,600 other abstracts, the CD permitted users to search the abstracts using selected keywords. See id. at *10. Given the dissemination, 

accessibility, and searchability of the CD, the Board found 

Clarke to be prior art. Id. 

As to claims 8 and 9, the Board concluded it would have 

been obvious to reach detection limits below 5 ng/dL and 1 

ng/dL based on the teachings of Clarke or Clarke with 

Draisci. The Board found that a skilled artisan would have 

been motivated to achieve a lower level of detection and 

have reached these levels by optimizing several experimental parameters, specifically by “increasing the volume 

of the sample” and “modernizing the equipment.” Id. at 

*19–20.

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 12/27/2021
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD 5

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Quest makes two arguments.4 First, that 

the Board erred in finding Clarke was publicly available 

and thus the Board’s unpatentability determination as to 

all challenged claims must be reversed. Second, that the 

Board erred in holding that claims 8 and 9 would have been 

obvious over Clarke and/or Clarke in view of Draisci. We 

address each in turn.

A 

Quest argues that Clarke was not a printed publication 

because it was not publicly accessible. See Appellant’s Br. 

at 40–55. “Whether a reference qualifies as a ‘printed publication’ . . . is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings.” Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., 

LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We review the 

Board’s legal determinations de novo and the underlying 

factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1355.

The Board found that the ASMS widely disseminated 

the CD containing Clarke and that the CD was available in 

a university library. See Lab’y, 2020 WL 5224211, at *7–

10. Quest largely ignores the ASMS’s public dissemination 

and instead highlights that Clarke was a single abstract 

out of approximately 1,600, all with minimal indexing. See

Appellant’s Br. at 43–45. Quest contends that this makes 

Clarke an obscure, inaccessible reference. We disagree.

As this court has recognized, “the breadth of the dissemination [] to persons of ordinary skill is significant,” 

and “[w]hether the disseminated material is addressed to 

4 Initially, Quest also argued for reversal on the basis of unconstitutionality of inter partes review under the 

Appointments Clause. See Appellant’s Br. at 56–57. However, Quest has since abandoned this argument. See ECF 

No. 30.

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 5 Filed: 12/27/2021
6 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD

or of interest to persons of ordinary skill is also relevant to 

the public accessibility inquiry.” Jazz Pharms., 895 F.3d 

at 1357–58. Here, although Clarke was surrounded by 

hundreds of other abstracts, the ASMS distributed the CD 

to the specific people most motivated to search the CD and 

find Clarke, a fact Quest does not dispute.

Moreover, the CD permitted keyword searching. While 

the CD did not allow users to search the word “testosterone,” the CD permitted several mass spectrometry-related keywords. Lab’y, 2020 WL 5224211, at *10; see also 

J.A. 1347–55 (listing search terms). Quest objects that 

LabCorp did not identify the specific keywords the Board 

ultimately relied on and presented no evidence that such 

keywords could meaningfully narrow the abstracts. Appellant’s Br. at 48–54. Nonetheless, given the wide dissemination of the CD, we are unpersuaded that any identified 

limitations in searchability require finding Clarke inaccessible. As this court has already held, “a printed publication 

need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 

2014).

Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that Clarke was publicly 

available and thus prior art.

B 

Quest also argues that the Board erred by holding that 

claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious in light of Clarke 

or Clarke in combination with Draisci.5 “Whether a 

claimed invention is unpatentable as obvious under § 103 

is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.” 

5 Quest made no separate argument as to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–14 other than Clarke not 

being prior art.

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 6 Filed: 12/27/2021
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD 7

In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We 

review the legal conclusion of obviousness de novo and the 

factual determinations for substantial evidence. See id. 

As an initial matter, the parties dispute which precise 

framework the Board applied in finding claims 8 and 9 obvious—either the “routine optimization” analysis or the 

“obvious-to-try” analysis. See Appellant’s Br. at 20–25. Regardless of this distinction, the Board articulated a clear 

motivation to modify and a clear reasonable expectation of 

success, see Lab’y, 2020 WL 5224211, at *18–20, findings 

that we conclude are supported by substantial evidence.

Specifically, Quest argues that there was no motivation 

to modify Clarke to increase sensitivity, that there was no 

reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and that 

there was a documented failure of others. See Appellant’s 

Br. at 26–40. 

We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

conclusion that there was a motivation to improve the sensitivity of methods measuring testosterone. The Board relied on LabCorp’s expert testimony, as well as the scientific 

papers underlying that expert testimony to conclude that 

“measuring low testosterone levels are known to be clinically relevant.” Lab’y, 2020 WL 5224211, at *18–19 (citing, 

for example, J.A. 1228–29). Although Quest argues that 5 

ng/dL and 1 ng/dL of testosterone are below the “‘clinically 

relevant’ range of testosterone,” we are unpersuaded this 

discourages developing more sensitive methods. Appellant’s Br. at 26. In sum, we find that the Board had substantial evidence to find a motivation to modify Clarke to 

reach 5 ng/dL and 1 ng/dL detection limits.

Turning to reasonable expectation of success, the 

Board recognized a number of parameters a skilled artisan 

could modify to reach 5 ng/dL or 1 ng/dL detection. Lab’y, 

2020 WL 5224211, at *18–19. The Board focused on “increasing sample volume” as a likely starting point. Id. at 

*19. Neither party disputes that increasing sample volume 

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021
8 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD

would increase level of detection, and experts for both parties agreed. Id. at *20, *24; see also J.A. 702 (LabCorp’s 

expert stating that “one of skill in the art would have routinely identified the suitable volume to optimize sensitivity”), 2467 (Quest’s expert recognizing that increasing 

sample volume “would increase the signal”). While Quest 

contends that an increased sample volume would decrease 

resolution, the claims at issue are silent as to resolution—

instead, the claims only refer to being “capable of detecting.” ’862 patent at claims 1, 8, 9. Therefore, and particularly when coupled with the Board’s consideration of other 

parameters, we are persuaded that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would 

have had a reasonable expectation of success of achieving 

a lower level of detection.

Lastly, we are unpersuaded by Quest’s argument that 

the alleged failure of others establishes nonobviousness. 

Quest points to a paper by Kushnir, et al.6 Quest argues 

that the paper demonstrates a failure of others to reach detection levels of 5 ng/dL or 1 ng/dL without derivatizing 

testosterone. Appellant’s Br. at 33–40. However, the 

Board explicitly considered Kushnir and found that the 

conditions were different and not indicative of failure to 

achieve the relevant detection levels. Lab’y, 2020 WL 

5224211, at *17, * 20. In particular, the Board noted differences in equipment and “sample preparation methods.” 

Id. Given the deferential standard of review, as well as the 

differences in Kushnir’s detection method relative to the 

claims at issue, we decline to say that the Board erred in

determining that Kushnir fails to establish nonobviousness.

6 Kushnir, et al., Performance characteristics of a 

novel tandem mass spectrometry assay for serum testosterone, 52(1) CLIN. CHEM. 120–28 (2006).

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 8 Filed: 12/27/2021
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD 9

In sum, we find that substantial evidence supports the 

facts underlying the Board’s conclusion that claims 8 and 9 

would have been obvious in light of Clarke. Because we 

affirm the Board’s obviousness determination on Clarke 

alone, we need not reach the combination of Clarke and 

Draisci.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Board’s 

decision finding claims 1, 2, and 4–14 of the ’862 patent 

unpatentable as either obvious or anticipated. 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 21-1115 Document: 58 Page: 9 Filed: 12/27/2021