Opinion ID: 4537742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial Evidence Supports the

Text: Board’s Factual Findings that a POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Schulman and Loeb In its obviousness determination for claims 8, 18, 22– 24, and 27, the Board found that a POSA would have been motivated to combine Schulman and Loeb to create an SCS system. J.A. 108–09. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings. Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 16 Filed: 05/29/2020 16 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. The Board first relied on Schulman’s teachings that its tissue stimulation system may be used for stimulating nerves and neural pathways to relieve pain. J.A. 107 (citing J.A. 2293 (Abstract). It then credited Dr. Kroll’s unrebutted testimony that SCS systems fall into the category of systems described in Schulman, and that “it would have been obvious to a POSA that Schulman’s system could be used for SCS.” J.A. 107 (citing 2450 ¶ 22, J.A. 2476 ¶ 73). The Board concluded that a POSA would have been mo- tivated to combine the teachings of Schulman and Loeb based on the disclosures in those references, and Dr. Kroll’s testimony. J.A. 108–110. Schulman and Loeb are both directed to tissue stimulation systems, J.A. 109 (citing J.A. 2293 (Abstract), J.A. 2636), and Schulman expressly incorporates Loeb, describing it as a known “[i]mplantable device for tissue stimulation.” J.A. 110 (citing J.A. 2307, col. 1, ll. 15–19.). And while Loeb discloses an “exemplary” cochlear electrode array, the reference clarifies that this is “one of many possible types of implantable electrode arrays that may be used with the invention.” J.A. 2636, col. 8 ll. 1–6. Dr. Kroll, moreover, testified that a POSA would have found it obvious to arrange Schulman’s microstimulators in Loeb’s array configuration because: “(1) the array is less likely to migrate from its implantation site, which provides better control in stimulating a targeted area, and (2) the array allows for better alignment of the charging coils of the implanted and external components of the system, thus allowing more efficient charging of the rechargeable power sources.” J.A. 109 (citing J.A. 2472–73). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings regarding a POSA’s motivation to combine.