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

Heading: Combination of Torgerson References

Text: Boston Scientific argues that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Torgerson ’198 and Torgerson ’756 in view of Torgerson ’883 to create a device that listens for two types of telemetry. We do not agree. As discussed above, Torgerson ’756 discloses the implementation of “other communication techniques” where “recharge regulation control unit 525 communicates with the external component.” J.A. 1130 at 9:48–53. It further discloses that when “the power source 315 is almost depleted of energy, the power source 315 may not have sufficient energy to provide the feedback control” and, therefore, “the external component may deliver an initial large burst of energy to ‘wake up’ the power source 315 and the recharge module 310.” J.A. 1129 at 8:62–67. Dr. Berger stated that the wake up burst in Torgerson ’756 “may be the same wake up burst” as the one in Torgerson ’883. J.A. 1321 at 144:8– 16. We therefore agree with the Board that “[g]iven that Torgerson ’883 employs a telemetry technique to deliver a ‘wake up’ burst, which Torgerson ’756 also discloses and is perhaps the same ‘wake up’ burst, . . . adequate motivation has been provided for a POSA to look to Torgerson ’883 for another technique (involving telemetry) to deliver a ‘wake up’ burst with respect to the charging component of Torgerson ’756.” J.A. 50. Accordingly, we hold that the Board did not err in holding that claims 1, 3–8, 10–14, and 16–20 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Torgerson ’198, Torgerson ’756, and Torgerson ’883.