The appellate court recounts the background to this invention at some length, including the problems with existing methods for processing liver cells. The trial court, for its part, had reviewed a large body of prior art and was impressed that not one reference discussed a multi-round freezing process.
But at Grey B, challenges that one might not have yet attempted/accomplished are considered as stepping-stones to success.
authorize IPR petitioners to challenge a patent for lack of written description or indefiniteness under § 112. 318(a) says the Board can issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability.
However, this does not mean that the Board is prohibited from invalidating patent claims under § 112 in an IPR.
Specifically, the statute mandating that the Board issue a final written decision does not appear to place limits on the Board’s ability to consider invalidity under other grounds. Do you believe that 318(a) does not give us the authority to say those claims are indefinite under 112 2nd[?
Rather, the statute states that: the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d).