1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Recent PTAB Decision Highlights Importance of Secondary Considerations in Obviousness Challenges

Jun 2, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Rubén H. Muñoz, Lance Han, law clerk (not admitted to practice)

The patent at issue in Varian Medical Systems is U.S. Pat. No. 7,471,765 B2 (the “’765 patent”), which generally relates to using a cone-beam CT scanner with a flat-panel imager in conjunction with a radiation therapy system as an image-guided radiotherapy system for increased precision and effectiveness of radiation treatments. The petitioners argued, and the PTAB agreed, that all claim limitations were taught by the combination of prior art references. However, the PTAB also assessed “secondary considerations” in its obviousness inquiry. In doing so, the PTAB found “(1) very strong evidence of industry praise; (2) very strong evidence of long-felt need; (3) moderately strong evidence of commercial success; and (4) moderately strong evidence of copying,” pointing to the nonobvious nature of the ’765 patent and its claims. First, for industry praise, the PTAB found evidence of textbook publications praising the invention, journal publications (“more than 1,000 . . . scientific articles”) citing the invention, and an R&D award from a magazine in 2006. Second, for long-felt need, the PTAB analyzed evidence such as the patent owner’s declaration and deposition testimony, and a journal publication that supported the patent owner’s assertion that the problem the patent purported to solve “need[ed] to be solved, and that it was long-felt at least since ‘the early 1990s.’”  Third, for commercial success, the PTAB found evidence that the majority of sales both worldwide and in North America were made with the claimed invention. Lastly, for copying, the PTAB found evidence that a third party created a product that met all claim limitations.

As a result, despite finding that the prior art, and the combinations of those prior art references, were “well known to one of ordinary skill in the art,” the PTAB ruled that the patent owner’s evidence of secondary considerations, which strongly pointed to nonobviousness, outweighed those findings and thus rejected the petitioner’s obviousness challenge.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital, IPR2016-00162, Paper 69 (May 4, 2017).

Share This Insight

Categories

Patent Trial & Appeal BoardObviousness35 U.S.C. § 103
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.