Specifically, in reassessing the anticipation grounds, the Board was no longer persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because it found that Patent Owner’s evidence and attorney argument do not demonstrate that the claims recite subject matter that is patentably distinct from the prior art. Instead, the Board was persuaded that the evidence presented in the expert testimony and the Petition was sufficient to show that the prior art disclosed a “laminar delamination gap.” In accordance with this new position, the Board changed its earlier determination and found that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that some of the claims of U.S. Patent 7,327,553 are anticipated by the prior art.
AVX Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd., IPR2015-00710 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2016) [Tornquist (opinion), Tierney, and Roesel (dissent)]