`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: November 20, 2014
`
` 1 RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
` 2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 3 - - - - - -
`
` 4 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 5 - - - - - -
`
` 6
`
` 7 SEQUENOM, INC.
`
` 8 Petitioner
`
` 9 v.
`
` 10 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
`
` 11 STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
`
` 12 Patent Owner
`
` 13 - - - - - -
`
` 14
`
` 15 Case IPR2013-00390
`
` 16 Patent 8,195,415 B2
`
` 17 Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, August 5, 2014
`
` 18
`
`
`
`19 Before: LORA M. GREEN, FRANCISCO C.
`
` 20 PRATS, and SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` 21
`
` 22 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
`
` 23 Tuesday, August 5, 2014, at 2:01 p.m., Hearing Room A, at the
`
` 24 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`
` 25 Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
`
` 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` 3
`
` 4 MICHAEL J. WISE, ESQ.
`
` 5 Perkins Coie LLP
`
` 6 1888 Century Park East
`
` 7 Suite 1700
`
` 8 Los Angeles, California 90067-1721
`
` 9 310-788-3210
`
` 10
`
` 11 PATRICK MORRIS, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
` 12 Perkins Coie LLP
`
` 13 Four Embarcadero Center
`
` 14 Suite 2400
`
` 15 San Francisco, California 94111-4131
`
` 16 415-344-7105
`
` 17
`
` 18 JOHN PETERSON, ESQ.
`
` 19 In-House Counsel
`
` 20 Sequenom, Inc.
`
` 21 3595 Johns Hopkins Court
`
` 22 San Diego, California 92121
`
` 23 858-202-9000
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
`
` 2
`
` 3 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` 4
`
` 5 R. DANNY HUNTINGTON, ESQ.
`
` 6 SETH E. COCKRUM, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
` 7 SHARON E. CRANE, Ph.D.
`
` 8 Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
` 9 607 14th Street, N.W.
`
` 10 Suite 800
`
` 11 Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` 12 202-783-6040
`
` 13
`
` 14 MARCUS BURCH, ESQ.
`
` 15 Representative for Illumina, Inc.
`
` 16 5200 Illumina Way
`
` 17 San Diego, California 92122
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2 (2:01 p.m.)
`
` 3 JUDGE GREEN: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
`
` 4 Welcome, everybody. This is the final oral hearing for
`
` 5 IPR2013-00390, which involves Patent Number 8,195,415.
`
` 6 The Board instituted inter partes review in this
`
` 7 proceeding on December 9, 2013.
`
` 8 At this time we would like counsel to introduce
`
` 9 yourselves and your colleagues, beginning with Petitioner.
`
` 10 MR. WISE: Your Honor, my name is Michael Wise. I
`
` 11 am lead counsel for Petitioner, Sequenom.
`
` 12 With me is my partner, Patrick Morris, and my
`
` 13 client, John Peterson, is in-house counsel for Sequenom.
`
` 14 JUDGE GREEN: Thank you. Welcome to the Board.
`
` 15 Patent Owner?
`
` 16 MR. HUNTINGTON: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I
`
` 17 am Danny Huntington for the Patent Owner. I have with me at
`
` 18 counsel table Dr. Seth Cockrum, who is one of the other
`
` 19 attorneys in our office.
`
` 20 Behind me is Dr. Sharon Crane, who is backup
`
` 21 counsel for this case. And then Mr. Marcus Burch, who is a
`
` 22 representative for Illumina, which is a licensee of the
`
` 23 Stanford case.
`
` 24 JUDGE GREEN: Okay. Thank you very much. Welcome
`
` 25 to the Board.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 Consistent with our trial order, each party has 45
`
` 2 minutes to present their argument. Petitioner will proceed
`
` 3 first to present its case as to the challenged claims, and
`
` 4 you may reserve rebuttal time for the case.
`
` 5 Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond, and
`
` 6 Petitioner can reserve rebuttal time.
`
` 7 Counsel for Petitioner, do you have copies of the
`
` 8 demonstratives for the court reporter, opposing counsel and
`
` 9 the Panel?
`
` 10 MR. WISE: I do.
`
` 11 JUDGE GREEN: Thank you.
`
` 12 MR. WISE: I have already given one to the court
`
` 13 reporter. May I approach the Bench?
`
` 14 JUDGE GREEN: Yes, please. And then would you
`
` 15 like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`
` 16 MR. WISE: I would, Your Honor. I would like to
`
` 17 reserve 10 minutes.
`
` 18 JUDGE GREEN: 10 minutes. Okay. Whenever you are
`
` 19 ready, you may proceed.
`
` 20 MR. WISE: All right. Demonstrative Exhibit 2 is
`
` 21 the cover page of the '415 patent. This is the patent
`
` 22 involving the IPR that was issued on June 9, 2012. It has a
`
` 23 provisional filing date of September 20, 2008.
`
` 24 The parties to this proceeding are no strangers to
`
` 25 each other. The inventors are Quake and Fan . The Patent
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 Owner is Stanford. And its licensee is Verinata Health,
`
` 2 which is a division of Illumina.
`
` 3 The '415 patent is presently being asserted
`
` 4 against Sequenom by Stanford and Verinata in a lawsuit
`
` 5 pending in the Northern District of California.
`
` 6 This '415 patent was also involved in U.S. Patent
`
` 7 Interference Number 105,922. And at that interference party
`
` 8 Lo was against party Quake, Quake being this inventive entity
`
` 9 here.
`
` 10 So it was Stanford versus the Chinese University
`
` 11 of Hong Kong. And party Lo assigned its rights to the
`
` 12 Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Chinese University
`
` 13 of Hong Kong in turn licensed their rights to Sequenom. That
`
` 14 interference is ongoing.
`
` 15 There were three other interferences between these
`
` 16 parties, parties Quake and Fan and the Lo parties. Those
`
` 17 interferences are 105,920, 105,923, and 105,924.
`
` 18 Those three interferences broadly involve the
`
` 19 subject matter of taking a mixed fetal and maternal DNA
`
` 20 sample from a pregnant woman, conducting random massively
`
` 21 parallel sequencing on that sample, aligning the sequence
`
` 22 reads from the random massive parallel sequencing procedure,
`
` 23 and then determining the amounts of a chromosome, such as
`
` 24 chromosome 21, versus one or more other chromosomes to detect
`
` 25 fetal aneuploidy.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 At question here today with respect to the '415
`
` 2 patent is whether or not Stanford's claims to using windows
`
` 3 with a massively parallel sequencing aneuploidy detection
`
` 4 method is patentable.
`
` 5 The grounds for patentability that were granted
`
` 6 with respect to this IPR are shown on slide 3. There is
`
` 7 really only three that we are going to talk about today based
`
` 8 upon the briefing.
`
` 9 The first one is whether or not Lo anticipates
`
` 10 under 102(e) and that would apply to all of t he claims.
`
` 11 The second one is ground number 3, which is
`
` 12 whether or not the combination of Lo and Wang render claim 13
`
` 13 and 16 obvious.
`
` 14 And the third one that is in di spute is whether or
`
` 15 not claim 17 is obvious over Lo, Wang, Hillier and Smith.
`
` 16 Those are the three issues that are being contested by the
`
` 17 parties.
`
` 18 So in terms of the claim construction there is
`
` 19 really one issue. And that was determined by the Board in
`
` 20 granting the IPR. Because the terms of the -- because the
`
` 21 claims and the specification define all of the other terms,
`
` 22 the only issue is how are windows and sliding window
`
` 23 interpreted.
`
` 24 This is claim 1. So this -- claim 1, independent
`
` 25 claim 1 and independent claim 13 set forth window and sliding
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 window.
`
` 2 So claim 1 has taking a mixed sample, conducting
`
` 3 sequencing, aligning the sequence reads, and then determining
`
` 4 values for numbers of sequence tags mapping to chromosome
`
` 5 portions by using a number of windows of defined length,
`
` 6 within normally and abnormally distributed chromosome
`
` 7 portions, to obtain a first value and a second value, and
`
` 8 then making a determination of whether or not there is an
`
` 9 abnormal distribution.
`
` 10 If we look at claim 13, it is similar. Again, you
`
` 11 are taking a mixed sample, you are conducting massively
`
` 12 parallel sequencing, you are aligning the sequence tags to
`
` 13 the reference human genome, and then you are determining
`
` 14 numbers of sequence tags mapping to each sliding window.
`
` 15 So they are using a sliding window of
`
` 16 predetermined length here, and based upon what aligns in that
`
` 17 sliding window, do a calculation to determine if there is an
`
` 18 abnormal distribution of a chromosome.
`
` 19 Slide number 7 just puts these two claim
`
` 20 limitations, sliding windows and windows of defined length in
`
` 21 front of you, but the claim terms are very cl ear and they
`
` 22 have been construed twice by the Board.
`
` 23 The first time was with respect to the granting of
`
` 24 the inter partes review by this Board. We interpret window
`
` 25 in claim 1 to mean a predefined subsection of chromosome of
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 sufficient length to allow a determination of an abnormal
`
` 2 chromosome distribution, if present, based on th e number of
`
` 3 sequence tags mapping to that chromosomal subsection.
`
` 4 Similarly, the Board in the 922 interference, on a
`
` 5 substantive motion, had to interpret what windows meant. And
`
` 6 again the Board found: Accordingly, on the record before us,
`
` 7 Lo's interpretation is reasonable and we construe the term
`
` 8 "windows" as a predefined subsection of a chromosome or a
`
` 9 chromosome region.
`
` 10 In slide 9 we see that the broadest reasonable
`
` 11 interpretation of sliding window, as set by this Board in the
`
` 12 grant of the request for inter partes review.
`
` 13 Accordingly, we interpret sliding window to mean a
`
` 14 contiguous, overlapping or nonoverlapping, predefined
`
` 15 subsection of a chromosome of sufficient length to allow
`
` 16 determination of an abnormal chromosome distribu tion, if
`
` 17 present, based on the number of sequence tags mapping to that
`
` 18 chromosome subsection.
`
` 19 So windows, sliding windows, there are regions of
`
` 20 chromosome that are big enough to have sequence tags aligned
`
` 21 and then determine whether or not there is an abnormal
`
` 22 distribution of a chromosome.
`
` 23 In addition, in the papers presented by the Patent
`
` 24 Owner, with respect to sliding window, the Patent Owner has
`
` 25 now admitted that the term sliding window is the same as a
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 number of windows of predefined length.
`
` 2 If you look at the Patent Owner's response at page
`
` 3 12 and page 16, and the Detter declaration, Exhibit 2138 at
`
` 4 paragraphs 12 through 15, in order to argue that the alleged
`
` 5 actual reduction to practice using a sliding window falls
`
` 6 within the scope of claim 1, the Patent Owner has argued that
`
` 7 sliding window is essentially the same as a window of
`
` 8 predefined length, as set forth in claim 1.
`
` 9 Now, because the Lo -- is it okay if I refer to
`
` 10 our application as Lo II, the published application that is
`
` 11 the prior art reference that we are referring to under
`
` 12 102(e)? Is that all right?
`
` 13 JUDGE GREEN: That's fine.
`
` 14 JUDGE PRATS: Lo II, that's how it is referred to
`
` 15 in the pleadings.
`
` 16 MR. WISE: It is.
`
` 17 JUDGE PRATS: I have a question. If we could back
`
` 18 up before we move on. There is a lot of case law that says
`
` 19 you read the claims in light of the specification.
`
` 20 I know the original decision and the decision in
`
` 21 the interference were saying, well, we are not going to read
`
` 22 things from the specification into the claim, but there is
`
` 23 the other side of the coin that Patent Owner is n ow arguing,
`
` 24 is that, well, if you really look at the specification of the
`
` 25 '415 patent, you really need to read equal into it. That's
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 reading it in light.
`
` 2 MR. WISE: Understood. So I think if we look at
`
` 3 slide 10, this is the decision from the Board in the 922
`
` 4 interference.
`
` 5 And if you look at this case law, it governs.
`
` 6 Basically this case law, Aventis and Liebel -Flarsheim,
`
` 7 essentially say, even if every single embodiment requires a
`
` 8 specific limitation, if that limitation is not in the claims
`
` 9 you cannot read it into the claims.
`
` 10 In addition, if Patent Owner really wanted to have
`
` 11 a windows of equal length to be the definition of what
`
` 12 windows of defined length were, they co uld have written the
`
` 13 claim that way. They could have amended the claim in this
`
` 14 proceeding, and they didn't do so. So they are stuck with
`
` 15 the language they have.
`
` 16 In addition, not every single embodiment within
`
` 17 their specification uses windows of equal length in the same
`
` 18 experiment.
`
` 19 JUDGE PRATS: You are referring to, I think,
`
` 20 example 8?
`
` 21 MR. WISE: I am referring to example 8. So they
`
` 22 cannot read into their '415 patent claims a limitation that
`
` 23 doesn't exist. They are trying to read their specification
`
` 24 into it.
`
` 25 And while you look at the specification and
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 understand the claims in light of the specification, windows
`
` 2 of defined length and windows of a predetermined length are
`
` 3 not windows of equal length. They would have needed to have
`
` 4 defined them that way and they didn't. And there are no
`
` 5 words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restr iction
`
` 6 with respect to these claim elements.
`
` 7 JUDGE PRATS: Their argument back, though, is that
`
` 8 the only place that windows of defined length, the actual
`
` 9 term in the claim, appears in their column 4 and later on in
`
` 10 discussion it talks about using windows of equal length.
`
` 11 MR. WISE: I think we are talking about that right
`
` 12 here, Your Honor, correct. So their lone reference to equal
`
` 13 length with their specification does not establish a clear
`
` 14 intention to limit. It is this paragraph.
`
` 15 And they argue that this sentence here that says
`
` 16 "This is explained in detail below, where a number of windows
`
` 17 of defined length are created along a chromosome, the windows
`
` 18 being on the order of kilobases in length, whereby a number
`
` 19 of sequence tags will fall into many of the windows."
`
` 20 And then they get down to here and they say what
`
` 21 this means here, where it say "this is explained in detail
`
` 22 below," is restricted specifically to this sentence t hat says
`
` 23 "By counting sequence tags within a series of predefined
`
` 24 windows of equal lengths along different chromosomes, more
`
` 25 robust and statistically-significant results may be
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 obtained."
`
` 2 But there is no rationale why, as this is
`
` 3 explained below, should not refer to the ensuing 16 pages of
`
` 4 specification, including all of the embodiments, and
`
` 5 including embodiment 8, that uses two different size windows
`
` 6 in one experiment.
`
` 7 And notably the last sentence of the paragraph
`
` 8 presents equal length windows as optional. In other words,
`
` 9 you can get better results if you use equal length windows
`
` 10 but it is not a requirement.
`
` 11 So let's turn to example 8. Example 8 uses two
`
` 12 different size windows in the same experiment. For
`
` 13 calculating G/C content and making a G/C bias correction, you
`
` 14 use a 20 kilobase nonoverlapping window. To determine
`
` 15 whether or not there is an abnormal chromosome distribution,
`
` 16 you use a nonoverlapping 50 kilobase window. Two different
`
` 17 window lengths in one experiment.
`
` 18 And their own inventor, Dr. Fan, confirmed that at
`
` 19 deposition. Dr. Fan confirmed that a trisomy detection and
`
` 20 G/C bias measurement within the same sample set constitutes a
`
` 21 single experiment.
`
` 22 Here is the testimony:
`
` 23 "Question: Well, there's one sequencing run. Is
`
` 24 the data analysis of that part of the experiment?
`
` 25 "Answer: It would be part of the experiment.
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 "Question: And would that include both the
`
` 2 detection or nondetection of trisomy 21 and measuring G/C
`
` 3 bias?
`
` 4 "Answer: The data would be used for both.
`
` 5 "Question: It's part of the same experiment for
`
` 6 that group of samples?
`
` 7 "Answer: Part of the experiment?
`
` 8 "Question: It's the same experiment for that
`
` 9 group of samples?
`
` 10 "Answer: That group of samples serves as one
`
` 11 experiment, yes.
`
` 12 "Question: Right.
`
` 13 "Answer: Okay.
`
` 14 "Question: Start to finish. You know, like if
`
` 15 you were publishing a paper just on those samples, you would
`
` 16 have your -- it would be one thing. It would be, 'Here's my
`
` 17 results. Here's my materials. Here's my procedure."
`
` 18 "Answer: What was the question?
`
` 19 "Question: It's one experiment with these
`
` 20 samples?
`
` 21 "Answer: Yes.
`
` 22 "Question: Start to finish.
`
` 23 "Answer: Uh-huh.
`
` 24 "Question: You know, including all the data that
`
` 25 you do, all the data analysis, it's all one experiment?
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 "Answer: I would say that it would be one
`
` 2 experiment."
`
` 3 The inventor testifies it is one experiment. And
`
` 4 their big distinction in their brief is that in every single
`
` 5 embodiment, when it is one experiment, it always has one
`
` 6 window. And example 8 has two, two different window size
`
` 7 lengths.
`
` 8 JUDGE KAMHOLZ: In the claim the windows are
`
` 9 referred to for determining values for numbers of sequence
`
` 10 tags.
`
` 11 MR. WISE: Correct.
`
` 12 JUDGE KAMHOLZ: How does the size of the G/C
`
` 13 window relate to that in example 8?
`
` 14 MR. WISE: Hold on. Let me look at the claim
`
` 15 language. Well, first of all, G/C content is a dependent
`
` 16 claim as well, and it depends off of claim 13, which talks
`
` 17 about using a sliding window of predetermined length.
`
` 18 JUDGE KAMHOLZ: I was focusing more on claim 1.
`
` 19 MR. WISE: Okay. With respect to claim 1,
`
` 20 determining values for numbers of sequence tags mapping to
`
` 21 chromosome portions by using a number of windows of defined
`
` 22 length, you would do the same thing with G/C bias.
`
` 23 You are taking the windows and you are dividing
`
` 24 them into 20 kilobase windows along the chromosome and
`
` 25 measuring the amount of G/C content in the windows and
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 comparing it to another to determine if there is any G/C bias
`
` 2 in that sample.
`
` 3 JUDGE KAMHOLZ: But the discussion of windows in
`
` 4 that limitation of claim 1 concerns sequence tags bias.
`
` 5 MR. WISE: Oh, the sequence tags contain the G/C
`
` 6 content, right, so it is ATGC, so you are looking at the
`
` 7 content of G/C on the sequence tags.
`
` 8 So the other argument that Paten t Owner presents
`
` 9 as the reason that you always have to have windows of equal
`
` 10 length, is because windows are being used for normalization.
`
` 11 And, again, this doesn't appear in the claims
`
` 12 themselves, as the Board in the 922 interference noted. The
`
` 13 only purpose of windows is to determine the values, first and
`
` 14 second values, to determine whether or not there is an
`
` 15 abnormal distribution.
`
` 16 The claims do not expressly indicate that the
`
` 17 windows are used for normalization, and nor do they expressly
`
` 18 indicate that the window must be of equal length. And there
`
` 19 is no direction from Fan that windows is a term of art that
`
` 20 necessarily requires normalization or windows of equal
`
` 21 length.
`
` 22 And their own expert testified twice that windows
`
` 23 have uses other than normalization. And those uses are
`
` 24 mitigation of computational demand of whole genome
`
` 25 sequencing, more informative results when you use smaller
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 amounts of information, smaller windows. And Dr. Detter's
`
` 2 testimony was noted by the Board in the 922 decision on
`
` 3 motions as to why the windows were not limited to windows of
`
` 4 equal length because normalization could be used for other
`
` 5 things. I'm sorry, the windows could be used for things
`
` 6 other than normalization.
`
` 7 So, clearly, the construction of windows to be
`
` 8 chromosomal subsections or chromosomal regions is correct,
`
` 9 yet to avoid Lo II as prior art, the Patent Owner argues that
`
` 10 Lo II does not disclose windows, which brings us to the Board
`
` 11 has determined twice that Lo II discloses windows.
`
` 12 The first one is in granting the IPR in paper 7,
`
` 13 finding that, when determining the number of windows, number
`
` 14 of sequence tags mapped to a particular chromosome, one may
`
` 15 count the number of sequence tags mapping to chromosome
`
` 16 regions, that is, subsections of chromosomes, rather than the
`
` 17 entire chromosome.
`
` 18 And in the 922 decision, Lo's interpretation is
`
` 19 reasonable and we construe windows as a predefined subsection
`
` 20 of a chromosome or chromosomal region. And Lo discloses
`
` 21 using chromosome subsections and sets -- chromosome regions
`
` 22 and sets of chromosome regions for detecting an abnormal
`
` 23 distribution of chromosomes, specifically fetal aneuploidy.
`
` 24 So that brings us to their next argument, which is
`
` 25 that the windows of Lo II are not defined by size and may
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`
`
` 1 vary. But the '415 patent itself says that window size is
`
` 2 arbitrary. Each window is of sufficient length to contain a
`
` 3 significant number of reads. Sequence tags, having about
`
` 4 20-100 face pairs of sequence. Typically a window will be
`
` 5 between 10 kilobases and 100 kilobases. More typica lly
`
` 6 between 40 and 60 kilobases.
`
` 7 So the size of the window is arbitrary. And,
`
` 8 therefore, in the '415 patent they are not necessarily
`
` 9 determined or defined by size.
`
` 10 The second argument they make is that the windows
`
` 11 are the tool that are being used to do the testing, not the
`
` 12 thing itself that is being tested.
`
` 13 And in Lo II it explicitly states that a
`
` 14 clinically-relevant chromosomal region can refer to a
`
` 15 polynucleotide sequence corresponding to a segment of a
`
` 16 larger genomic sequence, in other words, regions that are
`
` 17 being tested in the region you suspect to have aneuploidy, or
`
` 18 it is the larger genomic sequence itself. And that would be
`
` 19 the portion that is being tested as opposed to the tool.
`
` 20 So Lo discloses both the tool and the thing that's
`
` 21 being tested. And, finally, Dr. Gabriel testified that
`
` 22 windows themselves may be testified for aneuploidy. So this
`
` 23 is really a false distinction.
`
` 24 In addition to arguing the Lo II does not disclose
`
` 25 windows, Patent Owner also argues that Lo II does not enable
`
`
`
`