       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

           ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
                   Appellant

                           v.

                  ILLUMINA, INC.,
                      Appellee

JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS
 AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
 COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK
                 OFFICE,
                 Intervenor
           ______________________

                 2016-2388, 2017-1020
                ______________________

   Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No.
IPR2014-01093.
               ______________________

             Decided: December 11, 2017
               ______________________

    THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also
represented by JOSHUA LLOYD STERN, DAVID LANGDON
2                ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.   v. ILLUMINA, INC.



CAVANAUGH, JOSHUA KOPPEL, HEATHER M. PETRUZZI;
ROBERT J. GUNTHER, JR., New York, NY.

    EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee. Also repre-
sented by DEREK C. WALTER.

    BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA,
argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K.
KELLEY, MICHAEL SUMNER FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
SCOTT WEIDENFELLER.
                ______________________

     Before MOORE, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
    Ariosa appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board’s (“Board”) inter partes review decision holding
claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 were not
anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No.
2002/0172946 (“Fan”) because Fan was not prior art.
Because the Board did not err in determining that
Fan is not prior art and did not abuse its discretion in
denying Ariosa’s request for rehearing, we affirm the
Board’s decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to
review the termination of the ex parte reexamination
proceedings, we dismiss the appeal of the termination
of those proceedings.
    AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
                         COSTS
     No costs.
