"The Federal Circuit explained that when disputed claim elements are disclosed together in a single embodiment within a single prior art reference, there is no requirement to provide a separate motivation to combine them. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by requiring petitioner Guardant Health, Inc. to show a motivation to combine steps that were already disclosed in sequence in a single prior art reference."
"Guardant Health challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127, owned by the University of Washington (UW). The patent is directed to a method for reducing the error rate in massively parallel DNA sequencing using Duplex Consensus Sequencing (DCS). The patent's specification explains that, while massively parallel DNA sequencing has been used for clinical applications such as prenatal screening and cancer detection, it has limitations."
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB final written decision in an IPR, finding the Board erred by demanding a separate motivation to combine steps already disclosed in sequence in a single prior-art reference. The dispute involved U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127, directed to reducing error rates in massively parallel DNA sequencing using Duplex Consensus Sequencing (DCS). The patent describes a ~1% practical limit of detection from sample preparation and sequencing errors and discloses using redundant information in double-stranded DNA to lower that error rate. Guardant argued claims 1–30 were obvious over Travers '075 and Travers 2010, which disclosed amplifying and sequencing steps.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]