Opinion ID: 2796625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Biosig’s Claims Inform a Skilled Artisan With

Text: Reasonable Certainty Considering this background, and the Supreme Court’s articulated concerns in Nautilus II (the necessarily inexact balance between “the inherent limitations of language” and the “modicum of uncertainty” which is “the price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation,” on the one hand, and, on the other, enough precision “to afford clear notice of what is claimed”), we conclude that Biosig’s claims inform those skilled in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention. Nautilus II, 134 S. Ct. at 2128–29 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As we have stated in the past, “[t]he degree of precision necessary for adequate claims is a function of the nature of the subject matter.” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). On certiorari, the Supreme Court “express[ed] no opinion on the validity of the patent-in-suit” but rather instructed this court “to decide the case employing the standard we have prescribed.” Nautilus II, 134 S. Ct. at 2124. As an initial matter, since our decision in Nautilus I, the Supreme Court determined in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz that “when the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s determination will amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de novo.” 135 S. Ct. at 841. However, “when the district court looks beyond the intrinsic evidence and consults extrinsic evidence, for example to understand the relevant science, these subsidiary fact findings are reviewed for clear error.” BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. 15 Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., No. 2014-1321, 2015 WL 1136421, at  (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2015). Our prior analysis primarily relied on intrinsic evidence and we found the “extrinsic evidence underscores the intrinsic evidence.” Nautilus I, 715 F.3d at 901. We revisit the intrinsic evidence here to make clear that a skilled artisan would understand with reasonable certainty the scope of the invention. In relevant part, we noted an ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to determine this language requires the spaced relationship to be neither infinitesimally small nor greater than the width of a user’s hands. Specifically, we stated: [T]he district court is correct that the specification of the ’753 patent does not specifically define “spaced relationship” with actual parameters, e.g., that the space between the live and common electrodes is one inch. Nevertheless, the ’753 patent’s claim language, specification, and the figures illustrating the “spaced relationship” between the live and common electrodes are telling and provide sufficient clarity to skilled artisans as to the bounds of this disputed term. For example, on the one hand, the distance between the live electrode and the common electrode cannot be greater than the width of a user’s hands because claim 1 requires the live and common electrodes to independently detect electrical signals at two distinct points of a hand. On the other hand, it is not feasible that the distance between the live and common electrodes be infinitesimally small, effectively merging the live and common electrodes into a single electrode with one detection point. See ’753 patent col. 3 ll. 26–31 (describing how each hand is placed over the live and common electrodes so that they are BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. 16 “in physical and electrical contact with both electrodes”). Nautilus I, 715 F.3d at 899. The prosecution history further illustrates that the term is not indefinite. In Nautilus I, we considered the functionality of the claimed heart rate monitor as recited in claim 1, “which provided the basis for overcoming the PTO’s office action rejections during the reexamination.” Id. Specifically, claim 1 provides, in part: whereby, a first electromyogram signal will be detected between said first live electrode and said first common electrode, and a second electromyogram signal, of substantially equal magnitude and phase to said first electromyogram signal will be detected between said second live electrode and said second common electrode; so that, when said first electromyogram signal is applied to said first terminal and said second electromyogram signal is applied to said second terminal, the first and second electromyogram signals will be subtracted from each other to produce a substantially zero electromyogram signal at the output of said difference amplifier. Id. col. 5 ll. 48–61. This “whereby” clause describes the function of substantially removing EMG signals that necessarily follows from the previously-recited structure consisting of the elongate member, the live electrode, and the common electrode. Id. col. 5 ll. 42–47. As we described in Nautilus I, [t]he EMG signal is detected between the live and common electrodes, which are in a “spaced relationship” with each other. Even more significantly, the PTO examiner found this function to be “crucial” as a reason for overcoming the cited prior art and confirming the BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. 17 patentability of the asserted claims upon reexamination. J.A. 139–46. Thus, the recitation of this function in claim 1 is highly relevant to ascertaining the proper bounds of the “spaced relationship” between the live and common electrodes. See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d