PTAB

IPR2014-00551

Apex Medical Corp v. ResMed Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Humidifier with Structure to Prevent Backflow of Liquid Through the Humidifier Inlet
Brief Description: The ’453 patent relates to a humidifier assembly for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) apparatus. The technology involves a humidifier with a base constructed of heat-conducting material to retain liquid, a top cover, and a seal, which connects to a CPAP device via a dedicated connecting structure that supports the humidifier.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Mayer (Patent 7,096,864).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mayer, which discloses a modular humidifying apparatus for a CPAP unit, taught every limitation of independent claim 1 and the asserted dependent claims. Mayer’s "humidifying apparatus 2" was asserted to be a humidifier with a base ("trough element 201") made of a heat-conducting material, a top cover ("cup portion 202"), and a seal between them. The connecting structure was allegedly disclosed as Mayer's housing and "connecting portion 216," which supports the humidifier and includes a retaining mechanism to secure it to the CPAP unit. Petitioner further argued Mayer disclosed the dependent claim limitations, including an inlet and outlet (claim 2), electrical contacts for a power supply (claim 4), removable attachment capability (claim 5), and the use of a metallic material for the heat-conducting base (claim 6).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference, so a motivation to combine is not applicable.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference, so an expectation of success in combining is not applicable.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Mayer (Patent 7,096,864) and Lipscombe (Patent 6,554,260).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner incorporated its arguments that Mayer taught all limitations of claim 1. To address claim 3, which adds a "control knob to control a heat setting of the heating element," Petitioner relied on Lipscombe. Lipscombe was described as disclosing a humidifier assembly that includes a "control knob 32" which can be rotated to vary the amount of humidification, thereby controlling the heat setting.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Mayer and Lipscombe because they are analogous art from the same field of endeavor—delivering humidified respiratory gases. A POSITA would be motivated to add the user-adjustable control knob from Lipscombe to Mayer’s system to provide a simple, well-known method for a user to control the heating level and humidity, which would be a predictable improvement.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued there would be a high expectation of success, as incorporating a standard control knob to regulate a heating element was a routine and predictable design modification.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dobson (Patent 5,673,687).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dobson, which discloses a humidifier for a ventilator or other respiratory device, rendered the claims obvious. Dobson was alleged to teach a humidifier assembly with a base ("bottom member 6"), a top cover ("top member 4"), a seal, and a connecting structure ("air inlet 44") that rigidly couples the ventilator to the humidifier. Although Dobson does not explicitly show a heating element in contact with the base, Petitioner contended that because Dobson's stated purpose is to "add humidity," a POSITA would have found it obvious to include a heating element in contact with a heat-conducting base as a necessary component for efficient humidification. Petitioner also asserted Dobson taught the dependent claim limitations of an inlet/outlet (claim 2) and removable attachment (claim 5).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference, with the inclusion of a heating element argued as an inherent or obvious modification.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The successful implementation of a heating element was presented as being entirely predictable to a POSITA.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claim 3 over Dobson in view of Lipscombe, and for claims 4 and 6 over Dobson in view of Mayer, relying on similar combination rationales.

Petitioner requested that all claim terms be given their plain and ordinary meaning under the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. No terms were identified as requiring a special definition, but Petitioner provided clarifying constructions consistent with the specification for several terms central to its arguments.
- "seal": proposed as "a sealing engagement."
- "connecting structure": proposed as being "configured to connect between the CPAP apparatus and humidifier."
- "control knob": proposed as "a controller such as a knob or other selecting device...to control a heat setting of the heater."

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’453 patent as unpatentable.