"The cultured host cells required by the claims are undisputedly human made. They do not exist in nature . . . however, the district court determined that none of the individual naturally occurring components in the claims had been changed and that “combin[ing] natural products and put[ting] them in a host cell does not make the invention patentable under § 101."

"Like the man-made plasmid combining four naturally occurring bacteria in Chakrabarty, the claimed nucleic acid molecules here, although containing naturally occurring segments of DNA, are “not nature’s handiwork” and “not . . . a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but . . . a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter” . . . Similarly, like the cDNA claims in Myriad, “the lab technician unquestionably creates something new” when she splices together the claimed recombinant nucleic acid molecule that encodes an AAV vp1 capsid protein and a heterologous nonAAV sequence and inserts said molecule into a host cell . . . [C]ontrary to the district court’s holding, the claims here are distinguishable from those in Funk Brothers. In concluding that the asserted claims are like those in Funk Brothers, the district court found that “[t]aking ‘two sequences from two different organisms and put[ting] them together’ is no different than taking two strains of bacteria and mixing them together” . . . This analogy is flawed and inconsistent with the undisputed scientific evidence in the record . . . the claimed host cells here contain a recombinant nucleic acid molecule that, by definition, is markedly different from anything occurring in nature."

"VideoLabs does not meaningfully dispute the Board’s construction, but argues the Board erred by (1) considering Unified’s argument, raised for the first time in its Reply, that Sonohara discloses the “syntactical meaning” portion of the construction for “content-related . . . data segments,” and (2) determining that Sonohara disclosed “content-related . . . data segments” as construed."

Regarding 1), CAFC acknowledges that petitioner had an opportunity to respond under Axionics ("Unified was entitled to an opportunity to respond").

Regarding 2), CAFC finds adequate support in the record ("The Board reasonably relied upon this testimony from Unified’s expert to support its finding that a skilled artisan would infer “syntactical meaning” in the originating files after reviewing the file production process and header and track information in the composite file.").

"Micron raises three issues on appeal. First, Micron argues that in the -744 IPR Proceeding, the Board implicitly misconstrued “data rate” within the term “specified data rate.” Second, Micron argues that in the -745 IPR Proceeding, the Board legally erred in its motivation-to-combine analysis. Finally, Micron argues that in the -745 IPR Proceeding, the Board misconstrued limitation 15.6."

Regarding 1), CAFC agrees with the Board's analysis ("[I]n the context of claim 1, a “data rate” refers to a rate at which data is transmitted between components, i.e., data transmission between memory module and memory controller (preamble) and data transmission within data ranks (body of claim). This understanding of the claim necessarily excludes Micron’s proffered ratio, which is merely a ratio of two rates across different pairs of devices.").

Regarding 2), CAFC considers the analysis mischaracterized here ("Micron never established, nor did the Board find, that there was a motivation to combine Figures 2 and 4 for claim limitations 15.4 and 15.5. Rather, the Board determined that Micron failed to show a motivation to combine Figures 2 and 4 to arrive at the “claimed invention,” which requires a memory module with ranks that are configured to receive active and non-active chip signals . . . the Board properly considered the differences between Figures 2 and 4 when assessing Micron’s motivation-to-combine argument.")

Finally, regarding 3), CAFC finds the construction consistent with the M2C analysis and moooted("as the Board found, Halbert’s active chip select signals are not received by the ranks but rather by the multiplexer, a separate component in the memory module . . . Micron does not dispute this finding on appeal . . . As such, Micron’s alternative motivation to combine argument fails, regardless of whether claim limitation 15.6 requires non-active chip select signals to be sent only to the ranks.")