Opinion ID: 1405856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Enablement and Reasonable Expectation of Success

Text: In order to render a claimed apparatus or method obvious, the cited prior art as a whole must enable one skilled in the art to make and use the apparatus or method. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989). An individual prior art reference, on the other hand, need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2003); see also Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1991); Beckman Instruments, 892 F.2d at 1551. Abbott contends that the '382 patent in combination with the '410 patent could not enable the membraneless sensor of the '551 invention because the oxygen sensitivity of the '382 patent renders it ineffective when testing whole blood without a membrane. Oxygen sensitivity is an indicator of the effect that an oxygen-rich sample will have on the ability of a sensor to provide an accurate reading. Example 8 of the '382 patent, for example, notes that tests measuring glucose levels in an oxygen-saturated buffer solution returned a reading 95% of that produced in an oxygen-depleted buffer. '382 patent col.9 ll.19-21. The '382 patent thus displayed a 5% oxygen sensitivity. Both sides' experts agreed that a 5% oxygen sensitivity is tolerable. [6] The dispute between Abbott's expert and the defense experts was whether testing with whole blood would lead to oxygen sensitivity of greater than 5%. The district court made no explicit finding that the '382 patent would have enabled one having ordinary skill in the art to make and use a membraneless sensor. The district court did find, however, that the '382 patent exhibits very low oxygen sensitivity comparable to that disclosed in the '551 patent, and therefore the '382 patent would not have any issues with oxygen sensitivity. See Trial Opinion, 565 F.Supp.2d at 1104. This finding is not clearly erroneous. Although there was conflicting testimony on this issue, the district court could properly credit Bayer's expert, Dr. Turner, who testified that Example 8 of the '382 patent showed that there would be no greater than 5% oxygen sensitivity when testing with whole blood because the buffer test showed only 5% oxygen sensitivity and whole blood would necessarily have a lower oxygen sensitivity than the buffer solution. In light of the district court's finding that the '382 patent exhibits very low oxygen sensitivity comparable to that of the '551 patent, we reject Abbott's contention that the oxygen sensitivity of the '382 patent does not enable a membraneless sensor. Abbott also argues that even if the '382 patent disclosed a membraneless sensor for whole blood, the '551 patent would not have been obvious because the '382 patent's disclosure did not provide a reasonable expectation of success. Here, Abbott essentially recycles its contentions regarding the conventional wisdom of those skilled in the art concerning the need for a membrane and the oxygen sensitivity issue. [7] For the reasons discussed above rejecting those contentions, Abbott's claims that there was no reasonable expectation of success similarly fail.