Opinion ID: 4537742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Board’s Construction of “Waiting” is

Text: Not Erroneous and Substantial Evidence Supports the Board’s Factual Findings Regarding Alo Having considered the issues Boston Scientific raises on appeal, we now turn to Nevro’s cross-appeal. Independent claim 26 recites, inter alia, “(e) programming the stimulation parameters at first optimal values; (f) waiting a specified period of time and re-programming the stimulation parameters to second optimal values.” ’280 patent, col. 57 ll. 25–29. In concluding that claim 26 is not obvious over the combined teachings of Holsheimer and Alo, the Board concluded that claim 26 requires sequential steps of “programming,” then “waiting,” and then “re-programming,” and that Alo does not disclose these limitations. We conclude that the Board’s construction of the “waiting” limitation is not erroneous, and that substantial evidence supports its factual finding regarding the Alo reference. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 26 supports a construction wherein the steps of “programming,” “waiting,” and “re-programming” must be completed in that specific order. Claim 26 recites sequential steps of programming the stimulation parameters, waiting a specified period of time, and re-programming the parameters to “second optimal values.” ’280 patent, col. 57 ll. 25– 29. And as the Board noted, the prefix “re-,” in step (f) of Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 19 Filed: 05/29/2020 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 19 the claim suggests that the recited “re-programming” is a “new, second occurrence of programming that occurs after the first ‘programming’ occurrence, recited in step (e).” J.A. 101. Therefore the “waiting” limitation must occur after the first “programming” step (e) and before the second “reprogramming” step (f). J.A. 100–101. To hold otherwise would render the “waiting” element superfluous and effectively obviate the need to “re-program” the stimulation parameters. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s conclusion that Alo does not disclose the “waiting” limitation, much less for a “specified period of time.” Alo discloses a study in which two electrodes were placed in the epidural spaces of eighty patients. J.A. 2224. The electrode leads were connected to a trial stimulator, which was programmed with various options, to be tested over a five to seven-day trial period. J.A. 2224–25. In particular, [t]he patient was sent home for the first 24 hours of the trial with a simple C-stim program. This al- lowed the patient to become familiar with the basic controls of amplitude and the sensation of pares- thesia. The next day the patient was given up to 24 programs to choose from (PC-stim) . . . . These 24 programs could be activated individually by the patient at home using the transmitter. The patient was instructed to try each program one at a time and to rate each of the programs . . . . Programs that did not provide effective paresthesias were deleted. Treatment evolved via this di- rect interactive approach to a set of optimal programs that were stored in the transmitter. J.A. 2225. The reference explains that, even on the first day of the trial period, while in “C-stim” mode, the patient may immediately re-program stimulation parameters, e.g., amplitude and frequency, to second optimal values, without waiting for any period of time. J.A. 2225, 2227 Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 20 Filed: 05/29/2020 20 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. (“Patient control is limited to turning the single program on or off and control of amplitude and frequency”). In the “PC-stim” mode, moreover, the patient may immediately re-program stimulation parameters, e.g., amplitude and frequency, to second optimal values, without waiting for any period of time. J.A. 2227. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s construction of the “waiting” limitation in claim 26, and its factual finding that Alo does not disclose the “waiting” limitation, are not erroneous.