throbber
Paper No. ______
`Filed July 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Sequenom, Inc.
`
`By: Michael J. Wise (mwise@perkinscoie.com)
`
`Patrick D. Morris (pmorris@perkinscoie.com)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
`Telephone: (310) 788-3210
`Facsimile: (310) 788-3399
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEQUENOM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
`UNIVERSITY
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEQUENOM REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`IPR2013-00390
`8,195,415
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIMS 1-17 OF THE '415 PATENT ARE ANTICIPATED
`AND/OR OBVIOUS OVER THE CITED REFERENCES ........................... 2
`A.
`THE BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF "WINDOW"
`ENCOMPASSES ANY PREDEFINED SUBSECTION OF A
`CHROMOSOME ....................................................................................... 2
`LO II IS PRIOR ART AGAINST THE '415 PATENT ..................................... 4
`1.
`THE "CHROMOSOME PORTIONS" OF LO II ARE "WINDOWS" ........ 4
`2.
`LO II ENABLES THE USE OF "WINDOWS" .................................... 5
`3.
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED AN ACTUAL
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE PRIOR TO JULY 23, 2008 .................... 7
`C. WANG, HILLIER, AND SMITH ............................................................... 13
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`IPR2013-00390
`8,195,415
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Hahn v. Wong,
`892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Borkowski,
`422 F.2d 904, 164 U.S.P.Q. 642 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ................................................ 6
`
`In re Garner,
`508 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Price v. Symsek,
`988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Reese v. Hurst v. Wiewiorowski,
`661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ...................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C.,
`221 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 13
`
`Stampa v. Jackson,
`77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1105 (B.P.A.I. 2005) .................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition filed on June 26, 2013 (Paper 1) shows that '415 Patent claims 1-
`
`6 and 8-12 are anticipated by U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2009/0029377 ("Lo II," Ex.
`
`1002), and that claims 7 and 13-17 are obvious over Lo II in combination with,
`
`among others, U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2005/0221341 ("Shimkets," Ex. 1004), Wang
`
`et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(25):16156-61 (2002) ("Wang," Ex. 1005), Hillier
`
`Nature Methods 5(2):183-8 (2008) ("Hillier," Ex. 1006), and Smith et al. BMC
`
`Bioinformatics 9:128 (2008) ("Smith," Ex. 1009).
`
`In its Response (Paper 24), Patent Owner proposes that its claim term
`
`"windows" should include the unwritten limitation "of equal length." This
`
`construction is at odds with the plain meaning of the term and the disclosure of the
`
`'415 Patent, and would require the Board to reverse its construction from both the
`
`Decision dated December 9, 2013 (Paper 7) and the Decision on Motions dated
`
`April 7, 2014 in companion Interference No. 105,922 ("'922 Interference"). Patent
`
`Owner asserts that Lo II does not enable "windows of defined length," and that
`
`Wang does not disclose a "sliding window of predetermined length" and teaches
`
`away from the alignment of sequence tags with a single mismatch. These positions
`
`are based on minimal analysis and a fundamental misunderstanding of Lo II and
`
`Wang. In particular, Patent Owner fails to address the state of the art in 2008, a
`
`time at which the use of windows in conjunction with sequencing and alignment
`
`was well known. Finally, Patent Owner asserts that Lo II is not prior art against
`
`the '415 Patent because of an alleged earlier actual reduction to practice by Stephen
`
`Quake ("Quake") and Hei-Mun Christina Fan ("Fan"). This assertion also lacks
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`support, relying entirely on inventor testimony (Fan) and the statements of a
`
`contemporary witness (Yair Blumenfeld, "Blumenfeld") who fails to acknowledge
`
`that he understood or was even aware of the specific steps of the claimed methods.
`II. CLAIMS 1-17 OF THE '415 PATENT ARE ANTICIPATED AND/OR
`OBVIOUS OVER THE CITED REFERENCES
`A. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of "Window" Encompasses
`Any Predefined Subsection of a Chromosome
`The Board has construed "window" to mean "a predefined subsection of a
`
`chromosome of sufficient length to allow determination of an abnormal
`
`chromosome distribution, if present, based on the number of sequence tags
`
`mapping to that chromosomal subsection." Paper 7, p. 8, 2nd ¶. In the companion
`
`'922 Interference, the Board construed "windows" as "predefined subsections of a
`
`chromosome" or "chromosomal regions." Ex. 1088, p. 18, 2nd full ¶. Despite the
`
`Board having ruled on this matter twice, Patent Owner argues that both decisions
`
`are wrong and that "windows of defined length" are limited to windows of equal
`
`length. Paper 24, pp. 3-10.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the "portions of the '415 patent specification,
`
`including the examples and figures, that discuss the use of windows make it clear
`
`that the windows are all of equal length in a given experiment." Paper 24, p. 4, 1st
`
`full ¶. The Interference Board rejected this argument, stating "[w]hen we look to
`
`the specification for guidance in construing claim terms, we avoid limitations that
`
`are reflected only in specific embodiments, particularly if those embodiments are
`
`not reflected in the claims." Ex. 1088, ¶ spanning pp. 16-17. Further, Example 8
`
`in the '415 Patent contradicts Patent Owner's assertion regarding the examples by
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`using two different sized windows (50 kb for aneuploidy detection and 20 kb for
`
`GC content correction) in the same experiment, performed on the same sequencing
`
`data from the same samples. Ex. 1001, 26:5-59; Ex. 1089, 104:17-108:20.
`
`Patent Owner asserts the sentence "[t]his is explained in detail below, where a
`
`number of windows of defined length are created along a chromosome…" in the
`
`'415 Patent would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to refer
`
`specifically to "the second to last sentence of the paragraph." Paper 24, p. 6, 1st
`
`full ¶ to p. 7, 1st full ¶; Ex. 1001, 4:53-64. There is no credible basis for
`
`interpreting "explained in detail below" to refer to a single cherry-picked sentence
`
`rather than to the numerous ensuing references to windows in the '415 Patent.
`
`Further, the second to last sentence of the paragraph merely states "by counting
`
`sequence tags within a series of predefined windows of equal lengths along
`
`different chromosomes, more robust and statistically significant results may be
`
`obtained." Ex. 1001, 4:61-64. Thus, the use of equal length windows is not a
`
`requirement, but an option to achieve better results.
`
`Undeterred, Patent Owner asserts that the "only purpose" of the windows in
`
`the '415 Patent "is to normalize data." Paper 24, p. 10, 2nd full ¶. However, as the
`
`Interference Board found, "[t]he only purpose of the 'windows'…is to determine
`
`'values' for numbers of sequence tags mapped to the chromosome portions,
`
`specifically a 'first value and a second value,' which are then used…to determine
`
`whether or not an abnormal distribution exists;" the claims do not expressly
`
`indicate that the windows are to be used for normalization or that they must be of
`
`equal length. Ex. 1088, p. 14, 1st full ¶. Even Patent Owner's own witness, Dr. J.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`Chris Detter ("Detter"), testified numerous times that the windows of the '415
`
`Patent have purposes beyond normalization, including mitigation of computational
`
`demands of whole genome sequencing and more informative results due to
`
`examination of smaller amounts of information. Ex. 2117, ¶41; Ex. 1087, ¶45; Ex.
`
`1088, pp. 9-10, ¶¶5-6, p. 15, 1st full ¶.
`B. Lo II is Prior Art Against the '415 Patent
`1. The "Chromosome Portions" of Lo II are "Windows"
`Patent Owner asserts that the "windows" of the '415 Patent claims are distinct
`
`from the "chromosomal regions" or "sets of chromosome regions" of Lo II. Paper
`
`24, p. 13, 2nd full ¶ to ¶ spanning pp. 16-17. Patent Owner states that a
`
`chromosomal region cannot be a window of defined length because it "is not
`
`necessarily defined by size," and "may vary from person to person." Paper 24, ¶
`
`spanning pp. 13-14. This does not distinguish the two terms because the '415
`
`Patent does not define window size as a single objective number, but as an
`
`arbitrary size "of sufficient length to contain a significant number of sequence
`
`reads," typically "between 10 kb and 100 kb, more typically between 40 and 60
`
`kb." Ex. 1001, 5:6-11. Thus, like a chromosomal region, the size of a window
`
`may vary.
`
`Patent Owner states "a chromosome portion is being tested for aneuploidy, but
`
`a window is used to do that testing," and attempts to distinguish this from the
`
`"chromosomal region" of Lo II, which Patent Owner defines as "a polynucleotide
`
`sequence whose imbalance is itself being tested." Paper 24, p. 14, 1st full ¶; ¶
`
`spanning pp. 15-16. This is a false distinction because windows themselves may
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`be tested for aneuploidy. Ex. 2001, 56:17-20, 57:15-19. Further, Lo II states that a
`
`"clinically relevant chromosomal region" is "a polynucleotide sequence
`
`corresponding to a segment of a larger genomic sequence whose potential
`
`imbalance is being tested or to the larger genomic sequence itself." Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶0037, 0052. Thus, a "chromosomal region" of Lo II is not limited to a
`
`"chromosome portion being tested for aneuploidy," but may be a region within
`
`such a portion.
`
`Finally, to support its assertion that chromosomal regions are not windows,
`
`Patent Owner claims that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`windows of the '415 Patent to be used exclusively for normalization. Paper 24, p.
`
`17, 1st full ¶ to ¶ spanning pp. 18-19. As discussed above, this assertion
`
`contradicts the testimony of Patent Owner's own witness and the decision of the
`
`Interference Board, which states "Fan has not directed us to evidence that
`
`'windows' is a term of art that skilled artisans would have known inherently
`
`indicates equal length or a specific normalization protocol." Ex. 2117, ¶41; Ex.
`
`1087, ¶45; Ex. 1088, p. 14, 1st full ¶.
`2. Lo II Enables the Use of "Windows"
`Patent Owner asserts that Lo II lacks enablement because it requires undue
`
`experimentation to practice the "windows" of the '415 Patent. Paper 24, p. 19, 1st
`
`full ¶ to p. 21, 2nd ¶. To determine whether experimentation is undue, courts
`
`typically use the Wands factors, which Patent Owner alludes to but makes no effort
`
`to address. Patent Owner merely states that there are no working examples, and
`
`concludes that Lo II "does not provide any guidance." Paper 24, p. 20, 1st full ¶ to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`p. 21, 1st ¶; Ex. 1090, 157:18-158:25. The absence of working examples alone is
`
`insufficient to establish a lack of enablement. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908,
`
`164 U.S.P.Q. 642, 645 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ("The specification need not contain an
`
`example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in
`
`the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation.").
`
`As fully set forth in the Petition for IPR (Paper 1) and confirmed by the Board
`
`in Paper 7 and the Decision on Motions in the '922 Interference, Lo II discloses
`
`how chromosomal regions (i.e., windows) are used to analyze sequence tags for
`
`determination of aneuploidy. Paper 7, p. 10, 3rd full ¶ and ¶ spanning pp. 10-11;
`
`Ex. 1088, p. 19, 2nd full ¶. This is supported by a more complete analysis of the
`
`Wands factors. The level of skill in the relevant art was high when Lo II was filed,
`
`and windows were conventional mathematical tools whose use in bioinformatics
`
`was well known, predictable, and routine. Ex. 1090, 11:10-12:17, 153:21-25; Ex.
`
`1010, ¶22. Neither Patent Owner nor Detter provide any analysis of the relevant
`
`art in 2008, but references disclosing the use of windows in conjunction with
`
`sequencing include, for example, Lander et al. Nature 409:860-921 (2001) (Ex.
`
`1101, cited in the '415 Patent at 30:49-50), which discloses the use of windows of
`
`various sizes to analyze G/C content, distribution of repeats, and correlation
`
`between transposons and G/C content. Ex. 1101, p. 876, right col., 3rd full ¶ to p.
`
`877, left col., 4th full ¶; p. 883, right col., 2nd full ¶; p. 884, left col., 1st full ¶;
`
`Figs. 9, 13, 22, 36; Ex. 1090, 61:23-62:2. Other references disclosing windows in
`
`conjunction with sequencing prior to 2008 include U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2005/0221341 ("Shimkets," Ex. 1004), which discloses normalizing data for
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`aneuploidy detection by analyzing the distribution of genomic DNA fragments
`
`using windows of defined length within a test chromosome and a normal
`
`chromosome (see, e.g., ¶0007); Margulies et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
`
`102:3354-59 (2005) (Ex. 1091) (see, e.g., p. 3356, right col., 1st full ¶); Giladi et
`
`al. Bioinformatics 18:873-9 (2002) (Ex. 1092) (see, e.g., Abstract); Fares et al. J
`
`Mol Evol 55:509-21 (2002) (Ex. 1093) (see, e.g., Abstract, p. 512, ¶ spanning
`
`columns); and Brickner et al. Mamm Genome 10:95-101 (1999) (Ex. 1094) (see,
`e.g., Abstract, p. 96, 3rd full ¶). Ex. 1010, ¶¶97, 98, 100, 102-106.1
`Based on the level of ordinary skill in the art, the nature of the invention, the
`
`state of the prior art, and the level of predictability in the art, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art could have readily practiced sequencing and alignment using "windows
`
`of defined length" based on the disclosure of Lo II without undue experimentation.
`3. Patent Owner Has Not Established an Actual Reduction to
`Practice Prior to July 23, 2008
`Patent Owner attempts to avoid Lo II by asserting an actual reduction to
`
`practice by Quake and Fan prior to July 23, 2008. Paper 24, pp. 29-60. Quake's
`
`declaration has been withdrawn, and Fan's allegation of a reduction to practice
`
`1 Patent Owner does not dispute that U.S. Prov. Appl. No. 60/951,438 ("Lo I," Ex.
`
`1003) discloses all but step (c) (windows of defined length) of '415 Patent claim 1.
`
`Paper 24, p. 29, 1st ¶. Since each of the references listed above discloses the use
`
`of windows in conjunction with sequencing (with Shimkets disclosing the use of
`
`windows in conjunction with aneuploidy detection), claim 1 would be obvious
`
`over any of these references in combination with Lo I.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`lacks corroboration. Other than the Fan declaration (Ex. 2132), the only evidence
`
`of an actual reduction to practice proffered by Patent Owner is an unwitnessed and
`
`unsigned laboratory notebook (Ex. 2110), emails between the inventors and
`
`various parties that fail to reference the specific steps of the '415 Patent claims, and
`
`testimony by third parties who lack specific knowledge of the inventors' alleged
`
`activities during the relevant time period (Detter) and fail to corroborate a
`
`reduction to practice of the steps of the '415 Patent claims (Blumenfeld).
`
`"[A]n inventor's testimony as to the facts of invention must be corroborated by
`
`independent evidence." In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007), citing
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Corroborative
`
`evidence may be "testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual
`
`reduction to practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and
`
`circumstances independent of information received from the inventor." Hahn v.
`
`Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032-1033 (Fed. Cir. 1989), quoting Reese v. Hurst v.
`
`Wiewiorowski, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225 (C.C.P.A. 1981). "Sufficiency of
`
`corroboration is determined by using a 'rule of reason' analysis, under which all
`
`pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor's
`
`testimony." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
`
`citing Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, adoption
`
`of the "rule of reason" has not altered the requirement that evidence of
`
`corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself." Reese, 661 F.2d at
`
`1225.
`
`In support of its alleged actual reduction to practice, Patent Owner cites
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`Blumenfeld's declaration (Ex. 2134) and Ex. 2127, which purports to be an email
`
`from Blumenfeld to Fan and Quake. Paper 24, p. 37, 2nd full ¶. The email
`
`appears to be a response to a previous email from Fan in which she stated she was
`
`"attaching a graph of the preliminary analysis of the full sequencing run" and the
`
`recipients should "[p]ay attention to the distribution of chr21." Ex. 2127, p. 1. The
`
`excerpt of Fan's email in Ex. 2127 does not refer to aligning, windows, or any of
`
`the other specific steps of the '415 Patent claims; it does not even provide a cogent
`
`summary of the experiment or its results. Blumenfeld's response consists of one
`
`word: "[a]wesome!" Id. This is hardly sufficient to establish corroboration of the
`
`claimed method.
`
`When a claim is directed to a process, it is the successful reduction to practice
`
`of the process that must be corroborated, not merely the successful end result.
`
`Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1171. Neither the incomplete excerpt of Fan's original
`
`email nor Blumenfeld's one word response include any suggestion of "determining
`
`values for numbers of sequence tags mapping to chromosome portions by using a
`
`number of windows of defined length with a normally and abnormally distributed
`
`chromosome portions to obtain a first value and a second value therefrom." Even
`
`if the original email had included such information, Blumenfeld's one word
`
`response is insufficient to establish corroboration. In his declaration, Blumenfeld
`
`does not elaborate on the meaning of his statement; he simply reiterates that he told
`
`Fan the results were "awesome." Ex. 2134, ¶8. Blumenfeld never discusses the
`
`specific steps of the '415 Patent claims or his understanding or mindset regarding
`
`those steps in 2008, and never actually states that he was aware of a complete
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`Patent Owner also relies on the declaration of Detter (Ex. 2138). Despite
`
`opining about the state of the art in 2008 and the mindset of Quake and Fan, Detter
`
`admits he has no contemporaneous knowledge of the inventors' activities in 2008,
`
`has not performed any searches to ascertain the state of the art in 2008, and has
`
`relied exclusively on documentation provided by Patent Owner in reaching his
`
`conclusions. Ex. 1090, 20:8-22:10, 61:23-62:2. Witness testimony cannot
`
`corroborate an actual reduction to practice where the witness relies exclusively on
`
`what they were told by the inventor. Reese, 661 F.2d at 1231. Detter admits he
`
`does not know the legal definition of a reduction to practice, and when pressed on
`
`this issue provided a definition that was muddled at best. Ex. 1090, 18:9-20:7,
`
`22:12-27:15. As such, Detter's conclusions regarding Quake and Fan's alleged
`
`reduction to practice are entitled to no weight.
`
`Patent Owner cites a manuscript allegedly attached to a June 19, 2008 email
`
`from Fan to Quake and Blumenfeld (Ex. 2113/2111) as evidence of its reduction to
`
`practice. Paper 24, ¶ spanning pp. 38-39. The email refers to the attached
`
`manuscript as a "very rough draft." Ex. 2113, p. 1. There is nothing on the face of
`
`the exhibits to verify that the proffered attachments are the same ones that were
`
`attached to the original email, and Patent Owner has not provided testimony from
`
`Blumenfeld to confirm this point. Blumenfeld merely testifies that he received the
`
`email and that it included manuscripts or data. Ex. 2134, ¶9. Further, all
`
`Blumenfeld says about the manuscript in his declaration is that it was "based on
`
`their first Solexa sequencing run and was to be submitted to the journal
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA," and that he was listed as
`
`an author on the paper along with Fan, Quake, Usha Chitkara ("Chitkara"), and
`
`Louanne Hudgins ("Hudgins") when it ultimately published in 2008. Id. The mere
`
`existence of this manuscript is insufficient to establish corroboration. Patent
`
`Owner does not provide any contemporaneous emails from Blumenfeld discussing
`
`the manuscript or even acknowledging its receipt, and Blumenfeld offers no
`
`information in his declaration as to what he was actually aware of at the time the
`
`manuscript was circulated. It is also notable given Patent Owner's reliance on the
`
`manuscript that they do not reference the other authors on the eventual paper,
`
`much less provide declarations from them.
`
`Patent Owner goes on to cite a second manuscript attached to a July 9, 2008
`
`email from Quake to Herzenberg, Fan, and Blumenfeld (Ex. 2112) as further
`
`evidence of its alleged reduction to practice. Paper 24, p. 39, 2nd full ¶. Like the
`
`manuscript in Ex. 2113/2111, there is no evidence that the document included in
`
`Ex. 2112 is the same document that was attached to the original email.
`
`Blumenfeld does not discuss Ex. 2112 in his declaration, citing it only once
`
`without comment for the proposition that he discussed revisions to the manuscript
`
`with Quake and Fan on July 7, 2008 (i.e., prior to the date of the email). Ex. 2134,
`
`¶11. Blumenfeld does not describe these discussions, and again provides no
`
`indication that he actually read the manuscript or that he was aware of the steps of
`
`any aneuploidy detection methods.
`
`In his declaration, Blumenfeld states that he received an additional graph from
`
`Fan on July 1, 2008, and that he discussed the manuscript with Quake and Fan on
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`July 7, 2008. Ex. 2134, ¶¶10-11. In support of these assertions, Blumenfeld cites
`
`a July 1, 2008 email from Fan (Ex. 2129), and July 7 and July 9, 2008 emails from
`
`Quake (Ex. 2131 and 2112, respectively). However, there is nothing in Ex. 2129
`
`or Ex. 2112 to prove that Blumenfeld actually received those messages at the time,
`
`nor is there any indication in the exhibits or in Blumenfeld's declaration that he
`
`discussed the results with the inventors or offered feedback. The only input
`
`Blumenfeld provided in any of the cited emails was a statement in Ex. 2131 that he
`
`had added "a little bit about the recent ACOG Practice Bulletin which recommends
`
`that invasive testing now be offered to ALL women, regardless of risk factors. I
`
`think it will play nicely with the need for a 'risk-free' non-invasive diagnostic test."
`
`Ex. 2131, p. 1. There is nothing in this message to suggest that Blumenfeld
`
`understood or was even aware of the various steps of the '415 Patent claims;
`
`instead, it appears that Blumenfeld was merely providing information for the
`
`background of the paper.
`
`The burden is on Patent Owner to establish a corroborated reduction to
`
`practice. By failing to supply a single shred of evidence showing what any third
`
`party understood or knew about the steps of the claimed methods prior to July 23,
`
`2008, Patent Owner has utterly failed to meet its burden. The declaration of
`
`Blumenfeld is critically deficient because it provides no statement as to what
`
`Blumenfeld actually knew and understood about the methods recited in the '415
`
`Patent claims at the time of the alleged reduction to practice, and certainly no
`
`evidence that he was aware of all of the steps or that he recognized a complete
`
`reduction to practice. Further, Patent Owner fails to provide testimony from
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`Quake and Fan's alleged collaborators and coauthors Chu, Fischer, Chitkara, and
`
`Hudgins, or from any of the other parties listed in the acknowledgement section of
`
`their eventual PNAS paper (Sidow, Guang Shi, Norma Neff, Richard White III,
`
`and Nick Ingolia). Ex. 2139, p. 1. Given the significant potential of such
`
`testimony to corroborate the alleged reduction to practice, the Board is justified in
`
`drawing an adverse inference against Patent Owner for failure to proffer such
`crucial testimony.2 Stampa v. Jackson, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1105, 1120 (B.P.A.I. 2005),
`citing Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 71, 81-82 (2nd Cir. 2000).
`C. Wang, Hillier, and Smith
`Patent Owner asserts that Wang "does not disclose a sliding window of
`
`predetermined length as that term is properly construed." Paper 24, p. 22, 2nd ¶.
`
`Patent Owner states that the length of the sliding windows in Wang "was
`
`determined based on the number of virtual tags," and therefore the windows "were
`
`not all of an equal length within a given experiment." As discussed at length
`
`above, the windows of the '415 Patent do not have to be "of an equal length."
`
`Patent Owner is attempting to distinguish Wang on the basis of a limitation that is
`
`not present in the '415 Patent claims. Further, Wang's use of sliding windows of
`
`1,000 virtual tags to normalize shows that, contrary to Patent Owner and Detter’s
`
`assertions, windows do not need to be of fixed or equal length for normalization.
`
`Ex. 1005, p, 16157, left col., 1st ¶; p.16159, Fig 2 legend. It is not surprising that
`
`
`2 Similarly, the refusal of named '415 Patent co-inventor Quake to appear for cross-
`
`examination in the U.S. is suspect and warrants a negative inference.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`Detter gets this point wrong, as he has exhibited a complete lack of understanding
`
`regarding Wang. For example, Detter testified that Wang does not disclose sliding
`
`windows because it examined the chromosome as a whole. Ex. 2117, ¶157. Wang
`
`plainly states that "sliding windows" were utilized, a term that has a clear meaning
`
`and had that same clear meaning in 2002. Ex. 1005, p. 16157, left col., 1st ¶; p.
`
`16159, ¶spanning columns; p. 16159, Fig. 2 legend; p. 16160, Fig. 3B legend.
`
`Detter also exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of specific experiments in
`
`Wang, testifying that the "Analysis of Deletions" and "Analysis of Amplification"
`
`sections used a single window rather than plural sliding windows. Ex. 1090,
`
`87:21-90:9, 98:7-99:5. In both of these experiments, Wang explicitly states that
`
`they utilized sliding windows. Ex. 1005, p. 16160, Fig. 3B legend; p. 16159, right
`
`col., 1st full ¶. Given these inaccuracies, Detter's testimony regarding Wang
`
`carries little weight.
`
`Patent Owner goes on make the same assertion regarding the windows of
`
`Wang that they made regarding the windows of Lo II, namely that they are "a
`
`region being analyzed for abnormal distribution" rather than a subset of that region.
`
`However, this assertion is without merit. First, as discussed above, a window may
`
`be a region being analyzed for abnormal distribution. Second, the sliding windows
`
`used by Wang measure chromosomal sequence tag density which allows the
`
`determination of over and under representation of chromosomes.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`combined Hillier or Smith with Wang because Wang specifically teaches
`
`discounting sequence tags with single nucleotide mismatches. This argument is
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`without merit. The exclusion of mismatches in Wang was a function of its use of
`
`"first generation" Sanger sequencing, which had a low error rate at the time Wang
`
`was published in 2002. One of ordinary skill in the art reading Wang in 2008
`
`would have recognized that this prohibition would not extend to massively parallel
`
`sequencing methods, which had relatively high error rates at that time — a point
`
`noted by both Hillier and Smith. Ex. 1009, p. 2, right col, 1st ¶; Ex. 1006, p. 185,
`
`Fig. 2; Ex. 1010, 141-142. Due to these higher error rates, the alignment of
`
`sequence reads with one or more mismatches was well known and routine in the
`
`art in 2008. Ex. 1010, ¶¶141-143. Patent Owner's own witnesses have testified
`
`that the alignment program ELAND, which was used in the '415 Patent to align
`
`sequence tags to a reference genome, could align sequences with one mismatch.
`
`Ex. 1089, 51:23-55:18; Ex. 1090, 117:23-119:19. Other alignment programs
`
`available at the time likewise allowed for mismatches. Ex. 1095, p. 1852, left col.,
`
`4th full ¶. Thus, the teachings of Wang would have been insufficient to teach
`
`away from the use of aligned sequence tags with a single mismatch in 2008.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For all of the reasons set forth above and in Paper 1, claims 1-17 of the '415
`
`Patent should be found unpatentable over the prior art and canceled.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`
`By: /Michael J. Wise/
`Michael J. Wise, Reg. No. 34,047
`Patrick D. Morris, Reg. No. 53,351
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing SEQUENOM REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE was served electronically via email on the
`Patent Owner through its attorneys of record on this 7th day of July, 2014 as
`follows:
`
`R. Danny Huntington, Esq. (dhuntington@rfem.com)
`Sharon E. Crane, Ph.D., Esq. (scrane@rfem.com)
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC
`607 14th Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Patrick D. Morris/
`Patrick D. Morris
`Registration No. 53,351
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket