by Dennis Crouch
American Science and Engineering v. Stewart, No. 23-2127 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
In this short non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB's anticipation conclusion -- finding too many gaps in the Board's analysis. The invention here is an X-Ray inspection system used for moving objects. The claims require two "pencil-beams" shot in specific perpendicular directions with reference to the object's direction of motion. Detectors are then used to collect the scattered radiation and integrate the overlapping bi-directional results. In the IPR, the PTAB found a number of claims anticipated by "Seppi" and AS&E appealed - arguing that the finding lacked substantial evidence.
The central complaint is that the Board failed to explain its intermediary fact finding -- i.e., that "the Board failed to find Seppi’s scatter detectors can detect scattered radiation from two perpendicular pencil beam sources."
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.