Opinion ID: 4535035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “listening for telemetry”

Text: The Board construed “telemetry” as the “transmission of data or information . . . in the form of a transmission of energy (power).” J.A. 18. It clarified that “telemetry does not include an unmodulated transmission of energy (power).” Id. Under this construction, the Board found that Torgerson ’883’s disclosure of a charging circuit receiving telemetry from a telemetry signal teaches the claimed step of listening for the second type of telemetry. J.A. 42– 43. Boston Scientific argues that the Board erred in construing “telemetry” and what it means to “listen[] for . . . telemetry,” and therefore that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding. While Boston Scientific agrees with the Board that “telemetry” means “data or information,” it contends that “listening for . . . telemetry” means that “a specialized receiver is ready to receive data or information transmitted to it from a specialized transmitter.” Appellant’s Br. 36. Boston Scientific did not propose a construction for, and the Board did not separately construe, “listening for . . . telemetry.” Nevro contends that Boston Scientific waived any claim construction argument as to “listening for . . . telemetry” by failing to raise it before the Board. We agree. The Board construed “telemetry” in its Institution Decision, providing Boston Scientific ample opportunity to offer a Case: 19-1584 Document: 71 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2020 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC v. NEVRO CORP. 5 construction for the “listening for” term in its patent owner response. The Board’s Institution Decision also preliminarily determined that Torgerson ’883 discloses a “second telemetry from an external charging component . . .” under its construction. The Board’s finding in its Final Written Decision that Torgerson ’883’s charging circuit teaches “listening for a second type of telemetry” by “draw[ing] energy (power) from the modulated electromagnetic waves . . . transmitted to it” was therefore not an unexpected construction of “listening for telemetry” as Boston Scientific contends. Appellant’s Reply Br. 9 (citing J.A. 42– 43, 48–49). Accordingly, we hold that Boston Scientific waived any claim construction argument as to “listening for . . . telemetry” and we do not address the parties’ arguments as to the construction of this term or whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding under Boston Scientific’s proposed construction. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Torgerson ’883 discloses listening for a second type of telemetry under the Board’s construction. J.A. 41. Figure 2 of Torgerson ’883 “illustrates that a telemetry signal 10 interacts directly with a charging circuit 20 and a controller 90.” J.A. 1144 at 5:18–20. Torgerson ’883 further discloses that “[t]he telemetry signal 10 also interacts with the controller 90 to deliver and receive patient and device data.” Id. at 5:23–24. Thus, the signal in Torgerson ’883 meets the Board’s construction that the telemetry signal include data (e.g., modulated electromagnetic waves). J.A. 42–43. As the Board found, “[t]he fact that charging circuit 20 draws energy (power) from the modulated electromagnetic waves that make for the ‘telemetry’ signals does not change the fact that it uses the ‘telemetry’ signals transmitted to it.” J.A. 43.