Opinion ID: 4451027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The IPR Proceedings

Text: Alere, Inc., filed a petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1–6 and 9–15 of the ’019 patent on thirteen grounds. The Board instituted review as to only claims 1– 5, 9, and 11–15 on certain grounds but declined to institute review as to those same claims on other grounds raised in the petition. After institution, Rembrandt disclaimed claims 1, 9, and 11–15, leaving dependent claims 2–5 in the proceeding. In its final written decision and relevant to this appeal, the Board construed the “wherein” clause in part (c) of claim 1 “to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is disposed therein and capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure.” J.A. 17. The Board determined that Alere had 6 ALERE, INC. v. REMBRANDT DIAGNOSTICS, LP shown claim 2 to be unpatentable but had not shown claims 3–5 to be unpatentable. Alere appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).