Opinion ID: 6337945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim 16 and the Dependent Claims

Text: The Board’s decision upholding claim 16 and the corresponding dependent claims was limited to a finding that Wang ’099 was “missing the element of disassociating the master control from the end effector.” J.A. 43. The Board explained that in Wang ’099, “selecting a ‘device for operation does not mean that [the] master controller [] is 4 In light of our conclusion that substantial evidence supports the Board’s reasonable expectation of success findings for claims 51 and 53, we need not address Auris’s other unpatentability arguments for these claims because they similarly rely on modifying Borst. Auris raises nothing concerning the addition of Wang ’850 that would suggest the Board erred. Case: 21-1733 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 05/05/2022 AURIS HEALTH, INC. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS 11 operatively disassociated from the other devices.’” Id. According to the Board, Wang ’099 did not disclose “the communication” between the master controller and the previously-selected device ever being “even temporarily interrupted,” a characteristic the Board believed was required to satisfy the disassociating limitation. Id. The Board also concluded that Auris’s addition of Wang ’850 to the prior art combination failed because Auris did not “persuasively identify how Wang ’850’s master . . . could be integrated . . . to arrive at the limitation of disassociating a master controller.” J.A. 44. On appeal, Auris contends that the prior art taught the disassociating limitation and that the Board’s conclusion was based on an improper claim construction. Auris argues that the Board’s construction “exclud[ed] any system that maintains any communication between the master control and the end effectors, even if that communication is solely to allow the master controller to later re-establish an operative association.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 53. While the Board’s construction is not entirely clear, we think that Auris is correct in its interpretation of the Board’s decision in that respect, and that the Board’s claim interpretation is too narrow. In describing the disassociating limitation, the ’906 patent specification does not require the wholesale termination of communications between the master control and the controlled devices. The specification explains that “the masters [] are normally operatively associated with the slaves,” but “when one, or both, or either, of the masters are to be used selectively to place an image corresponding to auxiliary information . . . in the image or scene of the surgical site, the operative association between the master, or masters, and the slaves is temporarily interrupted.” ’906 patent, col. 23, ll. 1–7. During this temporary interruption, the “slaves are typically held or locked in stationary positions at the surgical site . . . in the positions they Case: 21-1733 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 05/05/2022 12 AURIS HEALTH, INC. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS occupied immediately before disassociation.” Id. at col. 23, ll. 8–11. Thus, disassociating requires only that the operative association be temporarily interrupted in a way that causes the slave devices to be held or locked in stationary position. The Board’s construction erred in requiring an interruption in communication. Auris argues that we should reverse on this issue, rather than remand, because Wang ’099 discloses disassociating under the proper construction. According to Auris, Wang ’099’s “master control is able to electronically control end effectors and separately access patient data from a network without causing the end effectors to move.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 53. Auris’s expert, Dr. Hannaford, testified that a person of skill in the art would understand that in Wang ’099, “user selection rout[es] control signals to a specified device, and thus, it disassociates the master control from other devices.” J.A. 1044, Ex. 1003 ¶ 146 (internal quotation marks omitted). But Intuitive’s expert, Dr. Rentschler, testified to the contrary. See J.A. 1907, Ex. 2003 ¶ 103 (“[T]he Wang ’099 system allows for multiple operating room devices to be active at once.”). We believe the question whether the combination satisfies the disassociating limitation is best left for the Board to address in the first instance. Finally, Intuitive proposes an “alternative reason” to affirm the Board’s decision to uphold claim 16 and the dependent claims: that “Auris failed to carry its burden to establish a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Borst to include ‘a second operating mode’” with a reasonable expectation of success. Appellee’s Br. 30–31. Intuitive argues that affirming would be proper “given that the Board already made the requisite factual findings on identical facts with respect to” claims 51 and 53. Id. at 31. Contrary to Intuitive’s assertion, the record for claim 16 was not “identical” to the record that the Board relied Case: 21-1733 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 05/05/2022 AURIS HEALTH, INC. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS 13 on in upholding claims 51 and 53. For example, Intuitive’s experts never testified that the same five steps required to modify Borst—applicable to claims 51 and 53—would be necessary to modify Borst with respect to claim 16. Dr. Rentschler testified only that Auris “has not provided any explanation on how a person skilled in the art would have expected to use Borst’s master control [] to add auxiliary information without inadvertently translating the movements of the master control to the end effector within the patient.” J.A. 1909, Ex. 2003 ¶ 106. Intuitive’s other expert, Dr. Grossi, testified only that Borst does not “teach how to disengage/re-engage the master controls with the surgical instruments when transitioning between the two modes of operation.” J.A. 1956, Ex. 2004 ¶ 24. Intuitive’s Patent Owner Response also never referenced the five steps argument. It contended only that Auris “has [] not established that a person skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Borst’s master controls [] to incorporate the ability to obtain and display auxiliary information,” and characterized Auris’s conclusory statements that Borst’s system “could be modified . . . with a high degree of predictability [] that [] would work as expected” as being “insufficient to establish . . . a reasonable expectation of success.” J.A. 386 (internal quotations omitted). Given that Intuitive did not make the same arguments or create the same record for claim 16 as it did for claims 51 and 53, we decline Intuitive’s request to affirm on these alternative grounds. On remand, the Board should consider (1) whether Wang ’099 discloses disassociating under the proper construction; and if it does (2) whether claim 16 and the corresponding dependent claims would be nonobvious, including whether a person of skill in the art would reasonably expect success in combining the asserted prior art references. Case: 21-1733 Document: 42 Page: 14 Filed: 05/05/2022 14 AURIS HEALTH, INC. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS