CAFC: Even Anticipation Requires Explanation

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In this short non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s anticipation conclusion — finding too many gaps in the Board’s analysis.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.”