Opinion ID: 6346492
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A suture securing assembly, comprising:

Text: an inserter including a distal end, a proxi- mal end, and a longitudinal axis between the distal end and the proximal end; a first member including an eyelet oriented to thread suture across the longitudinal axis, the first member being situated near the distal end of the inserter, the first mem- ber being configured to be placed in bone; and a second member situated near the distal end of the inserter, the second member be- ing moveable by a portion of the inserter relative to the first member in a distal di- rection toward the eyelet into a suture se- curing position where the second member locks suture in place. ’907 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added). Case: 18-2140 Document: 193 Page: 21 Filed: 05/27/2022 ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. 21 The Board found claim 1 anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0013608 (ElAttrache). Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., IPR2017-00275, 2018 WL 2084866, at –5 (P.T.A.B. May 2, 2018) (Board Decision). 6 ElAttrache is the 2002 publication of an earlier Arthrex patent application, Application No. 09/886,280. ElAttrache at [21]. It discloses the same flexible eyelet embodiment as the ’907 patent: Id. at Fig. 15. Before the Board, Arthrex agreed that ElAttrache would anticipate the challenged claims if it were prior art but argued that ElAttrache is not, in fact, prior art. Board Decision at . It reasoned that the ’907 patent claims 6 The Board also found claim 1 anticipated by International Patent Publication No. WO 02/21999 A2 (Martinek). Id. at –6. Because we affirm the Board’s decision based on ElAttrache, we need not address Martinek. Case: 18-2140 Document: 193 Page: 22 Filed: 05/27/2022 22 ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. priority to the ’280 application through a series of intervening continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications. Arthrex contended the effective filing date of the challenged claims is the filing date of the ’280 application, which was before ElAttrache’s publication date. The Board rejected that argument. It found that one of the intervening applications, Application No. 10/405,707, lacks any written description of the flexible eyelet embodiment encompassed by the generic eyelet claimed in the ’907 patent and, thus, cuts off the ’907 patent’s priority claim. Board Decision at . The Board reasoned that although the ’707 application incorporates the ’280 application by reference, id. at –12, it criticizes the ’280 application’s “flexible loop configuration” and purports to “overcome [its] disadvantages” using a “fixed aperture,” see id. at –9 (quoting ’707 application, ¶¶ 5–7). Because of that criticism, the Board found that a skilled artisan would have understood the ’707 application to do away with flexible eyelets and require rigid eyelets. Id. at –11. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the effective filing date of the challenged claims is the filing date of the application that issued as the ’907 patent, well after ElAttrache’s publication date. Id. at .