Opinion ID: 4537742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Evidence Supports

Text: the Board’s Factual Findings Regarding “Detachable Leads” We review the Board’s legal determination of obviousness de novo, and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In holding that claims 8, 18, and 22–24 would have been obvious over a combination of Holsheimer, Schulman, and Loeb, prior art U.S. patents, the Board concluded that both Holsheimer and the combination of Schulman and Loeb disclose “detachable leads.” Boston Scientific argues that the Board’s factual findings are erroneous because Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 10 Filed: 05/29/2020 10 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. they are unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The Board reasoned that Holsheimer discloses “detachable leads” based on its findings that: (1) Holsheimer discloses an SCS system; and (2) “all known SCS systems at the time of the ’280 patent used detachable leads.” J.A. 79– 80. Substantial evidence supports both findings. The claimed invention in Holsheimer “provides a number of superimposed current generated electrical fields for epidural spinal cord stimulation.” J.A. 2156 at col. 2 ll. 21–23; J.A. 2157 at col. 3 ll. 54–55 (“a neurological stimulation system employing the present invention to stimulate spinal cord 12 of the patient”). Four inventors of the ’280 patent testified, moreover, that prior to the critical date, “all SCS systems known to them employed detachable leads.” J.A. 80; J.A. 3127; J.A. 3318; J.A. 3679–3680; J.A. 3899. And Boston Scientific’s expert, Dr. Lipson, testified that he is not aware of any SCS systems that do not utilize detachable leads, and that he had never implanted an SCS lead while it was attached to an implantable pulse generator (“IPG”). J.A. 81; J.A. 6506. The Board further explained why, at the time of the invention, all SCS systems required detachable leads. Relying on Dr. Lipson’s testimony, the Board explained that, during the SCS system implantation process for percutaneous leads, “the lead is not attached to the IPG and, in fact, could not be so attached, because the lead’s distal end must remain free so that the needle can be removed by sliding it back and over the free distal end of the lead.” J.A. 82 (citing J.A. 2960–61). Dr. Lipson also testified that even implantation of SCS systems with paddle electrodes—like those described in Holsheimer—required the use of detachable leads. J.A. 82–83 (citing 2961–62 at col. 30 ll. 2–7, col. 30 l. 24–col. 31 l. 10, col. 32 l. 3–col. 33 l. 9). The Board properly relied on this substantial evidence to conclude Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 11 Filed: 05/29/2020 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 11 that Holsheimer’s SCS system discloses “detachable leads.” 1 Similarly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a POSA “would have found it obvious” to combine Schulman and Loeb into an SCS system that uses detachable leads. In determining that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of both patents, the Board relied on evidence that it had discussed in its findings regarding Holsheimer. J.A. 113 (“Much of the evidence considered in Section V.C.3.iii., above, is relevant here.”). For example, the Board cited to the testimony from four inventors of the ’280 patent that, prior to the critical date, “all SCS systems known to them employed detachable leads.” J.A. 113 (emphasis included). The Board explained that this evidence “documents the knowledge a POSITA would bring to bear in evaluating the appropriate lead arrangement for an SCS system, e.g., that rendered obvious by Schulman.” Id. The Board again considered the testimony of Boston Scientific’s expert, Dr. Lipson, who testified that he was not aware of any SCS systems that do 1 Appellant argues that the Board’s finding is “legally erroneous” because it “rests on a conclusion that Holsheimer inherently discloses detachable leads.” Appellant Br. 37. But the Board made no such finding. The Board concluded that a POSA, at the time of the invention, would have concluded that Holsheimer’s SCS system discloses “detachable leads”—its conclusion did not rely on our inherency precedent. J.A. 79–83. In any event, even if the Board concluded that Holsheimer discloses detachable leads inherently (as opposed to expressly), for the reasons stated above, we conclude that substantial evidence supports such a finding. See Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Whether a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation is . . . a question of fact.”). Case: 19-1582 Document: 91 Page: 12 Filed: 05/29/2020 12 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. not utilize detachable leads, and that “the process by which an SCS system is implanted requires a detachable connection to the IPG.” Id. (citing J.A. 6506). And, the Board considered the testimony of Nevro’s expert, Dr. Kroll, who also testified that a POSA would have found it obvious to use detachable leads. J.A. 114–115 (“We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Kroll’s analysis involves hindsight reasoning . . . record evidence also demonstrates that, in an SCS system, detachability is required and expected by those skilled in the art.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s findings with respect to the prior art’s disclosures of “detachable leads” are supported by substantial evidence.