Opinion ID: 1405856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Anticipation of '745 Patent Claims

Text: On summary judgment, the district court also concluded that there was no material issue of fact as to the anticipation of claims 1-5, 8, 21-23, 28, 31, and 34 of the '745 patent because PCT application WO 98/35225 (the '225 reference) already disclosed diffusible mediators. Summary Judgment Order, 560 F.Supp.2d at 875. This court reviews a ruling of summary judgment de novo. Although anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact, it may be decided on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citation omitted). The '225 reference contains the same disclosure as the '164 patent. Summary Judgment Order, 560 F.Supp.2d at 874. It describes a glucose sensor for blood samples smaller than one microliter. The primary improvement of the '745 patent over the '225 reference and the '164 patent is the use of diffusible or leachable mediators with such sensors. Claim 1 of the '745 patent reads: 1. A method for determining a concentration of glucose in a sample, comprising the steps of: (a) contacting a sample with an electrochemical sensor comprising: (i) an electrode pair comprising a working electrode and a counter electrode, wherein the working electrode and counter electrode are separated by a closest distance in a range of 200 to 1000 µm; (ii) a measurement zone positioned adjacent to the working electrode and the counter electrode, wherein the measurement zone is sized to contain a volume of no more than about 1 µL of the sample; and (iii) an analyte-responsive enzyme and a diffusible redox mediator disposed in the measurement zone; (b) holding the sample within the measurement zone in a non-flowing manner; (c) generating a sensor signal at the working electrode within a measurement period of no greater than about 5 minutes, wherein a background signal that is generated by the redox mediator is no more than five times a signal generated by oxidation or reduction of 5 mM of glucose ; and (d) determining the concentration of the glucose using the sensor signal. '745 patent col.61 ll.39-63 (emphases added). On appeal, Abbott challenges only whether the '225 reference disclosed the diffusible redox mediator limitation and the background signal limitation. However, Abbott did not argue the background signal issue to the district court in its opposition to summary judgment. See Summary Judgment Order, 560 F.Supp.2d at 871-72. Therefore, Abbott can not do so now on appeal and has waived the issue. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed.Cir.2009) (If a party fails to raise an argument before the trial court, or presents only a skeletal or undeveloped argument to the trial court, we may deem that argument waived on appeal....). Thus, the only remaining issue is the diffusible redox mediator element. The district court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact on whether the '225 reference disclosed the diffusible redox mediator element of the '745 patent because the '225 reference acknowledge[s] the possibility of using a leaching or diffusing mediator, although clearly the drafters preferred those that did not leach or diffuse. Summary Judgment Order, 560 F.Supp.2d at 873. Abbott argues that the district court focused on a single passage out of context. However, the plain language of the '225 reference does disclose diffusible or leachable mediators. The '225 reference states: Preferably, there is little or no leaching of the redox mediator away from the working electrode 22 into the sample during the measurement period, which is typically less than about 5 minutes. More preferably, the redox mediators of the present invention are bound or otherwise immobilized on the working electrode 22 to prevent undesirable leaching of the mediator into the sample. A diffusing or leachable (i.e., releasable) redox mediator is not desirable when the working and counter electrodes are close together.... '225 reference at 9. The plain meaning of the passage implies that diffusible mediators are contemplated, though they are not preferred. This conclusion is reinforced by the claims of the '225 reference. Claim 127 of the reference describes a method calling for a redox mediator. It does not specify whether this mediator is a leachable or a non-leachable mediatorthat is, diffusible or non-diffusible. Claim 128, however, encompasses [t]he method of claim 127, wherein the redox mediator is a non-leachable redox mediator, i.e., a non-diffusible mediator. '225 reference at 63. [T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). Here, where the dependent claim adds only the non-leachable (non-diffusible) mediator limitation, this principle of claim construction compels the conclusion that the '225 reference claims diffusible as well as non-diffusible mediators in claim 127. As discussed above, the claims here must be considered part of the disclosure. Moreover, not a single expert in the case challenged the fact that the '225 reference disclosed diffusible mediators, either explicitly or implicitly. While the witnesses argued that the '225 reference at least to some extent taught away from their use, [a] reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it.... [T]he question whether a reference `teaches away' from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.Cir.1998). Therefore, there was no triable issue of material fact left for a jury to consider on the issue of whether the '225 reference disclosed diffusible mediators. As such, summary judgment on anticipation of the '745 patent was proper.