Court Opinion

ID: 9407806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 14:00:41.865396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.298033
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1451   Document: 46     Page: 1   Filed: 07/10/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                    AXONICS, INC.,
                      Appellant

                            v.

                  MEDTRONIC, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                  2022-1451, 2022-1452
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00715, IPR2020-00679.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: July 10, 2023
                 ______________________

    WILLIAM P. NELSON, Tensegrity Law Group LLP, Red-
 wood Shores, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented
 by MATTHEW D. POWERS; AZRA HADZIMEHMEDOVIC,
 SAMANTHA A. JAMESON, AARON MATTHEW NATHAN,
 McLean, VA.

    CHETAN BANSAL, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,
 argued for appellee. Also represented by STEPHEN BLAKE
 KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI.
                  ______________________

     Before LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1451      Document: 46      Page: 2      Filed: 07/10/2023

 2                              AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
     Medtronic, Inc., owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,314 and
 8,036,756 (together, the Medtronic patents), which de-
 scribe and claim a neurostimulation lead and a method for
 implanting and anchoring the lead. Axonics, Inc., having
 been sued by Medtronic for infringement, challenged vari-
 ous claims of the Medtronic patents for obviousness in inter
 partes reviews (IPRs) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. In both
 IPRs, the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and
 Appeal Board concluded that Axonics had failed to prove
 any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Axonics ap-
 peals. Because the Board erred in its obviousness analysis,
 and because the errors cannot be regarded as harmless, we
 vacate and remand.
                                I
                                A
     The ’314 patent is a grandchild of the ’756 patent, so
 we hereafter cite only the ’314 specification. The “Field of
 the Invention” section of the specification states:
         This invention relates generally to a method
     and apparatus that allows for stimulation of body
     tissue, particularly sacral nerves. More specifi-
     cally, this invention relates to an implantable med-
     ical electrical lead having at least one stimulation
     electrode adapted to be implanted near the sacral
     nerves for stimulation of a bundle of sacral nerve
     fibers and a fixation mechanism for providing
     chronic stability of the stimulation electrode and
     lead. Moreover, this invention relates to the
     method of implantation and anchoring of the med-
     ical electrical lead electrodes in operative relation
     to a selected sacral nerve to allow for stimulation.
 ’314 patent, col. 1, lines 34–44. An extended discussion of
 “Related Art” follows, id., col. 1, line 45, through col. 5, line
 44, which is focused on medical problems addressable by
Case: 22-1451       Document: 46       Page: 3     Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                                3

 electrical stimulation of the sacral nerves, e.g., id., col. 1,
 line 46, through col. 4, line 23, but includes discussion of
 electrostimulation devices for other parts of the body, e.g.,
 id., col. 4, line 24, through col. 5, line 33. That section ends
 by identifying a “need in the art for a permanently implant-
 able electrical sacral nerve stimulation lead” with certain
 properties. Id., col. 5, lines 34–44.
     In the “Summary of the Invention” section, id., col. 5,
 line 46 (full-phrase capitalization altered), the specification
 then describes the “present invention” in terms that are not
 confined to the sacral nerves, id., col. 5, line 48. “The pre-
 sent invention provides a solution to the problems associ-
 ated with implanting and maintaining electrical leads in
 body tissue, particularly muscle tissue to maintain one or
 more lead electrode in relation to a particular body site,
 through use of minimally invasive implantation tech-
 niques.” Id., col. 5, lines 48–53; see also, e.g., id., col. 5, line
 65, through col. 6, line 19. Application to “sacral nerve
 stimulation” is one “preferred embodiment.” Id., col. 5,
 lines 53–64.
     The patents describe and show the features key to the
 present appeal: at least two electrodes at the distal end of
 the lead, with “a plurality M of tine elements arrayed . . .
 along a segment of the lead proximal to the stimulation
 electrode array.” Id., col. 6, lines 5–8. For example, Figure
 2 shows four “ring-shaped electrodes 25, 30, 35, and 40 in
 an electrode array 20 extending proximally from the lead
 distal end 45,” id., col. 9, lines 25–34 (emphases omitted),
 and four “tine elements” (125, 130, 135, and 140) attached
 “proximally toward the lead proximal end,” id., col. 10,
 lines 25, 32–35:
Case: 22-1451     Document: 46      Page: 4      Filed: 07/10/2023

 4                             AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 Id., Fig. 2 (annotated version in Medtronic’s Br. at 14).
      Claim 1 of the ’314 patent is illustrative of the claims
 at issue here:
     1. A system comprising:
         an implantable medical lead comprising:
              a lead body extending between a
             proximal end and a distal end;
              a plurality of conductors within
             the lead body;
               a plurality of electrodes, wherein
             each electrode is electrically con-
             nected to a conductor of the plural-
             ity of conductors; and
               a plurality of tine elements ex-
             tending from the lead body,
             wherein all tine elements of the
             plurality of tine elements are posi-
             tioned between a most proximal
             electrode of the plurality of elec-
             trodes and the proximal end of the
             lead body, each tine element com-
             prising a plurality of flexible, pliant
             tines, each tine having a tine width
             and thickness and extending a tine
Case: 22-1451       Document: 46      Page: 5   Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                            5

             length from an attached tine end to
             a free tine end, the attached tine
             end attached to the lead body from
             a tine attachment site and support-
             ing the tine extending outwardly of
             the lead body and proximally to-
             ward the lead proximal end,
             wherein the plurality of tines of the
             plurality of tine elements are
             adapted to be folded inward
             against the lead body when fitted
             into and constrained by a lumen of
             an introducer without overlapping
             one another and deploy outward to
             engage body tissue when the intro-
             ducer is withdrawn to release the
             plurality of tines, wherein the plu-
             rality of tine elements is separate
             from and axially displaced from the
             plurality of electrodes.
 Id., col. 13, line 51, through col. 14, line 11. No claim of the
 two patents either mentions or is limited to sacral nerves.
 The same is true of the titles of the two patents: “Implant-
 able Medical Lead Including a Plurality of Tine Elements,”
 ’314 patent, col. 1, lines 1–3 (capitalization removed); “Im-
 plantable Medical Electrical Stimulation Lead Fixation
 Method and Apparatus,” ’756 patent, col. 1, lines 1–3 (cap-
 italization removed).
                                B
     On March 16, 2020, Axonics petitioned for IPRs of
 claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10–12, 14, and 18–24 of the ’314 patent
 and of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13–15, and 18 of the ’756 patent.
 The Board instituted both IPRs on September 15, 2020—
 IPR2020-00679 for the ’314 patent and IPR2020-00715 for
 the ’756 patent. On September 13, 2021, the Board issued
 final written decisions in both IPRs.
Case: 22-1451     Document: 46     Page: 6      Filed: 07/10/2023

 6                            AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

                               1
      In its petition concerning the ’314 patent, Axonics ar-
 gued, among other things, that the challenged claims of the
 ’314 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for ob-
 viousness over Young (Ronald F. Young, M.D., Electrical
 Stimulation of the Trigeminal Nerve Root for the Treatment
 of Chronic Facial Pain, 83 Journal of Neurosurgery 72
 (1995)) in view of Gerber (U.S. Patent No. 6,055,456) and
 Lindegren (PCT App. No. WO 98/20933). 1 Axonics specifi-
 cally argued that a relevant artisan would have been moti-
 vated “to replace the one electrode of Young with multiple
 electrodes at the distal end distal to the anchoring mecha-
 nism, as taught in Gerber, in order to provide more flexi-
 bility in activation of a wider area and provide the
 possibility for bipolar electrical stimulation, as taught in
 Young.” J.A. 208 (Axonics’s petition). Only the Board’s
 findings about the combination of Young and Gerber are
 presented for review in this appeal.
     Young describes a clinical study of patients who re-
 ceived percutaneous implantations of an electrical neu-
 rostimulator to treat chronic facial pain resulting from
 injury to the trigeminal nerve or nerve root. J.A. 2405–06
 (Young at 72–73). The “study was undertaken . . . to ex-
 tend the application of electrical stimulation,” which had
 previously “been used successfully with spinal cord and
 deep brain stimulation, to the trigeminal system and
 chronic facial pain.” Id. The implanted neurostimulator
 used in the study “consisted of a monopolar . . . lead with
 two sets of four ‘tines’ located” a short distance proximal to
 the single electrode at the distal tip of the lead. J.A. 2406
 (Young at 73). The tines “prevent[ed] the electrode from

     1   The version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 applicable to both
 patents at issue here is the one pre-dating the amendments
 made by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011).
Case: 22-1451       Document: 46      Page: 7   Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                           7

 becoming dislodged after implantation.” Id. Young states
 that the neurostimulator “could be improved” by adding
 “multiple active stimulation sites,” i.e., additional elec-
 trodes, “near the tip[,] . . . which would permit greater flex-
 ibility in activation of a wider area of the trigeminal nerve
 root” and would “provide the possibility for bipolar electri-
 cal stimulation, which in other neurostimulation settings
 (such as [those] involving spinal cord and brain) has proved
 to be more effective than monopolar stimulation.” J.A.
 2410 (Young at 77).
      Gerber describes “an implantable medical lead having
 at least one electrode contact wherein the lead is implanted
 near the sacral nerves for stimulation” and a “method of
 implantation and anchoring of the medical lead near the
 sacral nerve.” Gerber, col. 1, lines 9–14. Gerber also dis-
 closes that existing leads for sacral nerve stimulation “have
 four small discrete electrodes built into the distal end of the
 lead.” Id., col. 1, lines 57–58. Gerber’s implantable lead
 includes “a distal end” (25) with “at least one electrode con-
 tact” (20) and “a proximal end” (35), id. col. 3, lines 21–22,
 42–46, and may include an “anchoring mechanism” (50) to
 keep the lead near the targeted sacral nerve, id., col. 4,
 lines 13–31, as shown in Figure 2:

 The anchoring mechanism may have holes for suture fixa-
 tion (50 in Figure 2) or may “allow the medical lead . . . to
 fibrose in naturally using the human body’s reaction to a
 foreign body or healing.” Id., col. 4, lines 13–31.
     In arguing that a relevant artisan would have been mo-
 tivated to combine the teachings of Young and Gerber, Ax-
 onics asserted that Young and Gerber “reasonably
Case: 22-1451     Document: 46      Page: 8      Filed: 07/10/2023

 8                             AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 address[] the similar problems of leads adequately stimu-
 lating the nerves while limiting electrode migration”—a
 problem that Axonics contended the ’314 patent also ad-
 dresses. J.A. 206 (Axonics’s petition, citing Young at 73;
 Gerber, col. 1, line 64, through col. 2, line 13). Young, Ger-
 ber, and the ’314 patent, according to Axonics, are also
 “from the same field”: “neurostimulation with implantable
 medical leads with electrode(s) at the distal end of the lead
 and a proximal anchoring mechanism.” Id. (citing Young
 at 73; Gerber, col. 3, line 39, through col. 4, line 52). Ax-
 onics argued that a relevant artisan “would have been mo-
 tivated to combine references that solve the same problem
 as the ’314 [p]atent in the same field.” Id. (citing Tokai
 Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed.
 Cir. 2011)). Axonics also argued that Young expressly pro-
 vides a motivation to make the asserted combination when
 it states that the neurostimulator used in the clinical study
 “could be improved to provide multiple active stimulation
 sites near the tip.” J.A. 207 (quoting Young at 77). Gerber,
 urged Axonics, “discloses multiple electrodes on implanted
 leads for sacral nerve stimulation” and an “anchoring
 means that fixes by fibrosis.” Id. Axonics added that, at
 the priority date, there were a “limited number of devices
 available . . . to anchor by fibrosis,” tines being the predom-
 inant one. Id.
     In its final written decision, the Board held all the chal-
 lenged claims of the ’314 patent not unpatentable for obvi-
 ousness. J.A. 2. The Board began by defining the relevant
 art and a relevant artisan, in agreement with Medtronic on
 the point of relevance here, as focused on sacral-nerve stim-
 ulation specifically. The Board found that “the relevant art
 is medical leads specifically for sacral neuromodulation,”
 J.A. 13; see J.A. 15, relying on the “field of the invention”
 statements to narrow the field in that way even though the
 claims are not limited to sacral nerves. J.A. 13–14. The
 Board then concluded that, because the relevant art “is so-
 phisticated and requires knowledge of human anatomy of
Case: 22-1451       Document: 46      Page: 9    Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                             9

 the sacral area and the surgical procedures involved in sa-
 cral neuromodulation,” a relevant artisan is someone with,
 among other experience, “at least two years of experience
 researching and developing medical leads for sacral neuro-
 modulation.” J.A. 15.
      The Board then addressed Axonics’s argument that the
 claims would have been obvious over Young in view of Ger-
 ber and Lindegren. The Board agreed with Axonics that it
 had “demonstrated each limitation of independent claim 1
 in its proposed combination”—including, as relevant here,
 a plurality of electrodes distal to all tines. J.A. 36. Never-
 theless, the Board found that Axonics had not demon-
 strated that a relevant artisan would have had a
 motivation to combine “Young’s lead with Gerber’s plural-
 ity of electrodes so the plurality of electrodes is distal to all
 of the lead’s tines.” Id. This failure of proof, the Board
 said, defeated the challenge to all identified claims, as Ax-
 onics “relie[d] on the same reasoning for combining” the
 teachings of Young and Gerber for all three independent
 claims (1, 11, 18). Id.
     In making its decisive determination, the Board first
 found that, contrary to the argument of Axonics, Young,
 Gerber, and the ’314 patent do not solve the same problem.
 The Board reasoned that the ’314 patent “addresses the
 need for a percutaneously implantable lead that is properly
 and securely positioned to provide sacral nerve stimula-
 tion,” J.A. 31 (emphasis added), and Gerber addresses “the
 positioning and securement of an electrode that is im-
 planted in the sacral area via a non-percutaneous surgical
 procedure,” id., but “Young addresses placement of an im-
 planted, percutaneously placed electrode system for . . .
 stimulation of the trigeminal sensory root for treatment of
 chronic facial pain,” id. (emphasis added).
     That distinction also was central to the Board’s rejec-
 tion of Axonics’s reliance, for motivating the combination
 with Gerber, on Young’s statement that “[t]he electrode
Case: 22-1451     Document: 46      Page: 10      Filed: 07/10/2023

 10                             AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 could be improved to provide multiple active stimulation
 sites near the tip.” J.A. 30, 34–35; see J.A. 2410 (Young at
 77). Medtronic and its expert, Dr. Slavin, asserted that
 this sentence in Young did not suggest to a relevant artisan
 “to include a plurality of electrodes distal to all of the tines”
 in the Young neurostimulator “because such an arrange-
 ment would not be feasible in the complex anatomy of the
 trigeminal nerve region.” J.A. 33. The Board agreed, stat-
 ing that the purpose of Young’s lead “is electrical stimula-
 tion of the trigeminal sensory root,” so Young’s sentence on
 improvement by adding electrodes would not have moti-
 vated a relevant artisan to combine Young’s lead with a
 plurality of electrodes distal to all of the tines (as taught in
 Gerber), because “such an arrangement would not be feasi-
 ble in the trigeminal nerve region” given the tight tissue-
 related spacing constraints of that particular nerve region.
 J.A. 35 (relying on Dr. Slavin’s testimony, reproduced at
 J.A. 33). The Board further found that Young “discloses
 multiple active sites near the tip, not at the tip or distal to
 the tines.” Id. This finding similarly depended entirely on
 Dr. Slavin’s testimony regarding the space constraints of
 the trigeminal-nerve region. Id. The Board therefore con-
 cluded that Axonics failed to prove that a relevant artisan
 would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
 Young and Gerber. Id.
                                2
     In its petition concerning the ’756 patent, Axonics ar-
 gued obviousness over Young in view of Gerber, Lindegren,
 and Akerström (U.S. Patent No. 4,407,303). This challenge
 relied on the same combination of Young and Gerber as
 was decisive for the ’314 patent. J.A. 291 (Axonics’s peti-
 tion). The Board rejected the asserted motivation to com-
 bine for the ’756 patent—and hence the obviousness
 challenge—for the same reasons it did for the ’314 patent.
 J.A. 103–04.
Case: 22-1451      Document: 46       Page: 11   Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                          11

                                 3
     Axonics timely appealed from both final written deci-
 sions on February 4, 2022, within the 63 days allowed by
 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1). We have juris-
 diction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319 and 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                                II
     Obviousness is an issue of law decided based on numer-
 ous factual findings, including the scope and content of the
 prior art, the level of ordinary skill, and whether a relevant
 artisan would have had a motivation to combine references
 in the way required to achieve the claimed invention.
 Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331
 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
 1, 17–18 (1966)); PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Phar-
 maceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196–97 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
 Factual findings are reviewed for substantial-evidence sup-
 port, which exists when, on the whole record, “a reasonable
 fact finder could have arrived at” the finding on review. In
 re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether
 the decision on review rests on a failure to apply the correct
 legal standards is determined de novo on appeal. Belden
 Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
     The Board in this case rejected Axonics’s obviousness
 challenge because it found that Axonics failed to show that
 a relevant artisan would have had a motivation to combine
 the teachings of Young with those of Gerber, and the Board
 rested that finding on its determination that the proposed
 combination “would not be feasible in the trigeminal nerve
 region.” J.A. 35. We conclude that this rationale is doubly
 infected by error. First, even if the Board was correct to
 treat the Medtronic patents at issue as limited in the prob-
 lem they address to the sacral-nerve context, the Board
 committed a fundamental legal error in confining the mo-
 tivation inquiry to whether a motivation would exist to
 make the proposed combination for use in the Young-
Case: 22-1451    Document: 46     Page: 12      Filed: 07/10/2023

 12                           AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 specific trigeminal-nerve context—to which the Medtronic
 patents are not limited. Second, the Board was incorrect
 in its view that “the relevant art is medical leads specifi-
 cally for sacral neuromodulation,” J.A. 13, as the Medtronic
 patents’ claims are not limited to the sacral-nerve context
 and the shared specification, properly read, is not so lim-
 ited either. Unable to characterize these errors as harm-
 less, we vacate the Board’s decisions and remand.
                              A
      When an obviousness challenge asserts a combination
 of identified prior art, the motivation-to-combine portion of
 the inquiry is “whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been
 motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art refer-
 ences to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting &
 Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d
 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted)
 (emphasis added); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480
 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The inquiry is not
 whether a relevant artisan would combine a first refer-
 ence’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet re-
 quirements of the first reference that are not requirements
 of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter
 to established principles, including that the claim defines
 the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that
 a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular
 features of different references, e.g., to secure some bene-
 fits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorpora-
 tion would be impossible or inadvisable. See, e.g., In re
 Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Ur-
 banski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243–44 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Med-
 tronic states, “[t]he real question is ‘why a person of
 ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements
 from specific references in the way the claimed invention
 does.’” Medtronic’s Br. at 66 (quoting ActiveVideo Net-
 works, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d
 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original)).
Case: 22-1451      Document: 46       Page: 13   Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                          13

     The Board adopted a legally incorrect framing of the
 motivation-to-combine question when it confined the in-
 quiry to whether a motivation would exist to make the Ger-
 ber-Young combination for use in the Young-specific
 trigeminal-nerve context. That context is not part of the
 Medtronic patents’ claims. The proper inquiry is whether
 the relevant artisan would be motivated to make the com-
 bination to arrive at the claims’ actual limitations, which
 are not limited to the trigeminal-nerve context. And the
 Board made no finding, and the parties have not pointed to
 evidence, that the space constraints of that context, on
 which the Board relied for finding no motivation to make
 the combination for trigeminal-nerve stimulation, are ap-
 plicable to other nerve-stimulation contexts covered by the
 claims at issue, which include sacral-nerve stimulation.
     The Board’s contrary view makes particularly little
 sense given the Board’s definition of the relevant artisan
 providing the perspective that governs the obviousness
 analysis and of the problem addressed by the Medtronic
 patents here. The Board, in agreement with Medtronic’s
 own position, defined the relevant artisan as a person in
 “the relevant art” of “medical leads specifically for sacral
 neuromodulation,” J.A. 13, and the Board, while accepting
 that Young was prior art that the relevant artisan would
 consider, identified the problem addressed by the Med-
 tronic patents as sacral-nerve stimulation, J.A. 31. Such
 an artisan, focused on such a problem, would hardly be
 reading Young only for what it taught or suggested about,
 or only how features of Young’s teachings might be com-
 bined with Gerber for, the trigeminal-nerve context. Ra-
 ther, such an artisan would be considering what Young
 taught or suggested about, or how features of Young’s
 teachings might be combined with Gerber for, at least the
 sacral-nerve context.
     The Board thus improperly limited the Young-Gerber
 combination analysis to what would work in the trigemi-
 nal-nerve area. That legally incorrect framing of its
Case: 22-1451    Document: 46      Page: 14      Filed: 07/10/2023

 14                            AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

 motivation inquiry was not harmless. The Board did not
 find that the critical space limitations of the trigeminal-
 nerve area are present elsewhere, including the sacral-
 nerve area. And the Board did not rely on any ground for
 rejecting the motivation argument of Axonics that is inde-
 pendent of the legally erroneous framing. Vacatur and re-
 mand is necessary for this reason.
                               B
     Relatedly, we also conclude that the Board erred in its
 definition of “the relevant art” as limited to medical leads
 for sacral-nerve stimulation. J.A. 31. The parties have
 treated this issue as a factual one, subject to substantial-
 evidence review. Even under that standard of review, we
 conclude that the Board’s ruling on the issue cannot stand.
     The Medtronic patent claims make no reference to sa-
 cral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, and they cannot
 be properly construed as so limited. Neither the Board nor
 Medtronic has cited any authority for treating the relevant
 art as limited to a narrow subset of what the claims of a
 patent cover—a conclusion that would risk curtailing prior-
 art analysis of a claim to less than its exclusive-rights-pro-
 tecting scope. And we have repeatedly ruled that what con-
 stitutes “analogous art” for section 103 purposes is tied to
 “the claimed invention.” See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland
 GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 66 F.4th 1373,
 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing and quoting cases).
     In any event, the only reasonable reading of the speci-
 fication is contrary to the Board’s narrow definition. The
 Board relied on the “Field of the Invention” paragraph, J.A.
 13 (quoted supra p. 2), but the language of that paragraph
 can readily be understood as identifying examples, not nar-
 rowing, even if read alone. And it must be so understood
 when not read in isolation. The “Summary of the Inven-
 tion,” ’314 patent, col. 5, line 46 (capitalization altered),
 like the title of each patent, states the invention in general
 terms, not limited to the sacral-nerve context, e.g., id., col.
Case: 22-1451      Document: 46       Page: 15    Filed: 07/10/2023

 AXONICS, INC.   v. MEDTRONIC, INC.                             15

 5, lines 48–53; id., col. 5, line 65, through col. 6, line 19, and
 the Summary labels the sacral-nerve stimulation applica-
 tion as one “preferred embodiment,” id., col. 5, lines 53–64.
 See also id., col. 13, lines 32–39 (stating application to spe-
 cific other areas). The expressly broad scope of what was
 identified as invented is not negated by the fact that the
 specification notes a “need” in the sacral-nerve context that
 may have supplied the inventor’s starting point. Id., col. 5,
 lines 34–44.
     We therefore conclude that substantial evidence does
 not support the Board’s limitation of “the relevant art” to
 sacral-nerve stimulation. The Board relied on this limita-
 tion in rejecting Axonics’s argument for the asserted moti-
 vation to combine Young with Gerber. We are unable to
 say that this error was harmless.
                                III
     For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s final
 written decisions and remand for further proceedings con-
 sistent with this opinion.
     Costs awarded to Axonics.
                 VACATED AND REMANDED