`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 108136.00020
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Curran et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,187,334
`Issue Date: May 29, 2012
`Appl. Ser. No.: 13/079,645
`Filing Date: April 4, 2011
`Title:
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SPINAL FUSION
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD HYNES, M.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,187,334
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................... 1
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`BASIS FOR OPINION ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`THE FIELD OF SPINAL FUSION IMPLANTS .......................................................... 5
`
`V. THE LAW OF ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS ................................................. 8
`
`VI.
`
`THE ‘334 PATENT........................................................................................................... 9
`
`VII.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘334 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE ...................... 10
`
`A.
`
` Distal Wall / Proximal Wall ........................................................................................................................... 11
`
`B. Releasably Mate ............................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`C. Extend Generally Perpendicular to Said Longitudinal Length ................................................................... 13
`
`D. Elongate Body ................................................................................................................................................... 14
`
`E. Generally Rectangular and Generally Oblong in Shape .............................................................................. 14
`
`F. A Lateral Width of the Distal End of Said Distal Wall/A Lateral Width of Said Proximal End of Said
`Proximal Wall ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................................... 16
`
`IX.
`
`THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................. 16
`
`A. U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0165550 (“Frey”) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`B. U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0028249 (“Baccelli”) .................................................................................. 19
`
`C. U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0139813 (“Messerli”)................................................................................. 20
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,860,973 (“Michelson”) ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`E. U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0100950 (“Moret”) .................................................................................... 22
`
`F.
`
`Synthes Vertebral Spacer-PR Brochure (“SVS-PR” or “SVS-PR Brochure”) .......................................... 22
`
`G. Telamon Verte-Stack PEEK Vertebral Body Spacer Brochures (“Telamon”) .......................................... 23
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`X. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CLAIMED INVENTION AND THE PRIOR ART
`AND THE OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ................................................ 25
`
`A. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 27
`
`B. Claim 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 39
`
`C. Claim 3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 39
`
`D. Claim 4 .............................................................................................................................................................. 41
`
`E. Claim 5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 45
`
`F. Claim 10 ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
`
`G. Claim 11 ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
`
`H. Claim 14 ............................................................................................................................................................ 50
`
`I.
`
`Claim 15 ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
`
`J. Claim 16 ............................................................................................................................................................ 54
`
`K. Claim 17 ............................................................................................................................................................ 55
`
`L. Claim 18 ............................................................................................................................................................ 57
`
`M. Claim 19 ............................................................................................................................................................ 60
`
`N. Claim 20 ............................................................................................................................................................ 61
`
`O. Claim 21 ............................................................................................................................................................ 62
`
`P. Claim 22 ............................................................................................................................................................ 63
`
`Q. Claim 23 ............................................................................................................................................................ 65
`
`R. Claim 24 ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
`
`S. Claim 25 ............................................................................................................................................................ 68
`
`T. Claim 26 ............................................................................................................................................................ 70
`
`U. Claim 27 ............................................................................................................................................................ 73
`
`V. Claim 28 ............................................................................................................................................................ 74
`
`XI. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ........................................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
`
`1. My name is Richard A. Hynes, M.D. I have been retained by
`
`petitioner Medtronic, Inc. in this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) as an independent
`
`expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I
`
`have reviewed in this IPR related to U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334 (the “‘334 patent”),
`
`and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding the same subject matter. I
`
`have been asked to consider what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood from the ‘334 patent. I have also considered whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in the claims of the ‘334 patent. My
`
`opinions are set forth below.
`
`3. My opinions are guided by my appreciation of how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the ‘334 patent at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, which I have been asked to initially assume is March
`
`29, 2004, the earliest filing date potentially attributable to the ‘334 patent.
`
`4.
`
`Based on my experience and expertise it is my opinion that certain
`
`references as discussed in detail below disclose or suggest all the features recited in
`
`the claims of the ‘334 patent, that any differences from these prior references are
`
`trivial, and that these claims combine well known features to provide predictable
`
`results.
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`5.
`
`I am an orthopedic surgeon board certified by the American Board of
`
`Orthopaedic Surgery and trained in spine surgery. I earned a B.A. degree in
`
`Biology from Rutgers, my M.S. degree in Biology from American University, and
`
`my M.D. degree from Rutgers Medical School. I completed a general surgery
`
`internship and orthopedic residency at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu,
`
`Hawaii and later completed a spine fellowship at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. I
`
`am a diplomat of the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery and the American
`
`Board of Spine Surgeons. I am currently president and a spine surgeon at The
`
`B.A.C.K. Center in Melbourne, Florida. Previously, I was the Chief of the
`
`Department of Surgery at the Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne,
`
`Florida.
`
`6. With respect to the specific subject matter at issue in this IPR,
`
`intervertebral spinal fusion, I have extensive experience. I have performed
`
`between 4000 to 5000 lumbar and cervical fusion procedures over the past 20
`
`years. I have published several papers on the subject of spine surgery, and am a
`
`frequent instructor to visiting surgeons on spinal surgical approaches and
`
`techniques of spinal fusion. I consult for several spine companies in many areas,
`
`including design, development and surgical approaches and surgical instruction. A
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`true and correct copy of my current curriculum vitae is submitted in this IPR as
`
`Exhibit MSD 1011.
`
`7.
`
`I also have specific experience designing a spinal fusion implant,
`
`before the middle of 2003, now called Saber and marketed by Depuy Spine, a
`
`Johnson & Johnson company. The Saber design is an elongated generally
`
`rectangular implant made of a poly-ether-ether-ketone (“PEEK”) composite and
`
`including teeth to resist retropulsion, large medial and lateral openings to allow
`
`vascularization to the graft material inserted in a large aperture in the product, and
`
`also including tantalum beads (one in the proximal end and one in the distal end) to
`
`assist in viewing the placement of the implant when viewed on X-rays. The large
`
`open design provided increased area for bone graft material to be placed. The
`
`implant also included a threaded opening for releasable attachment to an insertion
`
`tool. A brochure describing the commercialized design is attached to this report as
`
`Exhibit Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`Although I am being compensated at my usual rate of 500 dollars per
`
`hour, for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation is dependent
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding. As mentioned above, I consult for several
`
`spine companies, including for Medtronic’s spine division.
`
`III. BASIS FOR OPINION
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`9. My opinions set forth in this declaration are based on my education,
`
`training, and experience as described above as well as the information pertaining to
`
`the ‘334 patent and other references described below.
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the ‘334 patent,
`
`including its specification, figures, claims, and file history. I have also reviewed
`
`the file history U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 11/093,409 (the “‘409 application”), the
`
`parent application to which the ‘334 patent claims priority.
`
`11.
`
`I have also reviewed several prior art patents, patent applications, and
`
`other publications. These include U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0165550 to
`
`Frey (“Frey”), U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0028249 to Baccelli (“Baccelli”),
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0139813 to Messerli (“Messerli”), U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0100950 to Moret (“Moret”), U.S. Patent No. 5,860,973 to
`
`Michelson (“Michelson”), a brochure published and publicly available in May
`
`2002 that described the Vertebral Spacer-PR manufactured by Synthes (the “SVS-
`
`PR”), and two brochures published and publicly available in 2003 that described
`
`the Telamon Verte-Stack PEEK Vertebral Body Spacer manufactured by
`
`Medtronic (the “Telamon”). I have also reviewed the other documents mentioned
`
`below. I have provided a chart, attached hereto as Appendix B, that offers a short
`
`summary of the key attributes of these prior art publications, highlighting the many
`
`similarities of these disclosures.
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`12. Further, I did also consider and analyze physical products and their X-
`
`Ray characteristics under radiographic inspection such as the NuVasive CoRoent
`
`XL that I understand NuVasive has alleged is an embodiment of the claims of the
`
`‘334 patent. I also considered the Medtronic Clydesdale implant that NuVasive
`
`has alleged infringes the ‘334 patent. I have further considered embodiments of
`
`the prior art, including a PEEK Telamon implant and a PEEK Medtronic
`
`Boomerang I, which is very similar to the Frey application disclosures. Although
`
`my review of these products supports my conclusions, my opinions expressed in
`
`this report also stand on their own, independent of my consideration of these
`
`physical products.
`
`13.
`
`I have also considered the declaration of Steve DeRidder, a co-
`
`inventor named on the Frey application. Although my opinion is independent of
`
`Mr. DeRidder’s, I note that his opinion supports my conclusions.
`
`IV. THE FIELD OF SPINAL FUSION IMPLANTS
`
`14. The spine is a flexible structure that extends from the base of the skull
`
`to the tail bone. It contains 33 interconnected bones called vertebrae. Each
`
`vertebra is connected to the vertebra above and below at a facet joint. Each
`
`vertebra is separated from the vertebra above or below by a cushion-like,
`
`fibrocartilage called an intervertebral disc. There are 23 intervertebral discs in the
`
`human body: six in the cervical region (i.e., neck); 12 in the thoracic region (i.e.,
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`middle back); and five in the lumbar region (i.e., lower back). The human spinal
`
`column is configured so that the intervertebral discs act as shock absorbers for the
`
`spine. In addition, intervertebral discs act as ligaments that hold vertebrae
`
`together. Intervertebral discs also work with the facet joint to allow for slight
`
`movement of the spine; together, these structures allow the spine to bend, rotate
`
`and, or twist.
`
`15. The spinal structure can become damaged as a result of degeneration,
`
`dysfunction, disease and, or trauma. More specifically, the spine may exhibit disc
`
`collapse, abnormal curvature, asymmetrical disc space collapse, abnormal
`
`alignment of the vertebrae and/or general deformity. Disc collapse, abnormal
`
`curvature, mal-alignment or deformity may lead to imbalance in the sagittal and
`
`coronal planes with resultant concomitant kyphosis and/or scoliosis. This may
`
`result in nerve compression, disability and overall instability and pain. Where a
`
`patient suffers from instabilities in the spine that cause pain and/or deformity,
`
`surgical intervention may be required.
`
`16.
`
`It is well known that one method used to treat such degenerated,
`
`diseased or otherwise damaged spinal columns and vertebrae is the removal of all
`
`or a portion of the vertebral disc and inserting a spinal implant to restore normal
`
`disc height and spine orientation, and repair the defective spinal anatomy by
`
`maintenance of the reorientation by the fusion of one vertebrae to the adjacent
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`level. Additionally, when desired, it is common practice to implant bone grafts,
`
`osteoconductive and/or osteoinductive material into the intervertebral space to
`
`enhance arthrodesis, bone growth and fusion, between the two vertebrae adjacent
`
`to the intervertebral space. Accordingly, it was known to manufacture implants
`
`with a cavity for receipt of bone grafts, osteoconductive and/or osteoinductive
`
`material. Such practice was known prior to the use of non-bone implants, when
`
`early bone graft methods used femoral allograft rings. The center of the ring was a
`
`cavity and one would insert osteoconductive and osteoinductive materials into the
`
`cavity to enhance fusion.
`
`17. The use of radiographic markers in spinal implants formed from
`
`radiolucent materials was well known prior to the earliest filing date of the ‘334
`
`patent. For example, U.S. Patent Nos. 3,829,904, 3,891,997, 3,922,726, 4,123,806,
`
`4,224,698, 4,450,592, 5,405,402, 5,425,762, and 5,476,880 disclose such markers
`
`in various sizes and shapes, orientations and locations. Radiopaque markers are
`
`helpful in facilitating radiographic assessment of the location, orientation,
`
`positioning and any migration of the intervertebral spinal fusion implant during
`
`and after implantation.
`
`18. The construction of spinal fusion implants out of PEEK and similar
`
`materials was also well known in the prior art well before the earliest filing date of
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘334 patent. For example, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,425,772, and 6,096,080 disclose
`
`the use of PEEK in the construction of spinal fusion implants.
`
`V.
`
`THE LAW OF ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed by counsel, and I understand that a patent claim
`
`can be invalid for any one of several reasons. Here, I will mention two of them,
`
`anticipation and obviousness. Both of these relate to “prior art,” which involves
`
`information that existed at some time before the filing date of a patent application.
`
`The prior art may include, for example, devices, publications, or patents.
`
`20. A patent claim is invalid as anticipated if all of the limitations exist in
`
`a single device that predates the claimed invention, or it must have been described
`
`in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the description in a written prior art reference does
`
`not need to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the physical requirements
`
`of the claim must be there either explicitly or inherently. That is, they must either
`
`be stated or implied so that someone of ordinary skill in the relevant field looking
`
`at that reference would be able to understand and use that information.
`
`22. A patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made which in the absence of earlier proof is presumed to be the date the
`
`patent application was filed. I understand that this means that even if all the
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art who knew or who had access to all of the relevant prior
`
`art could have come up with the claimed invention by, for example, applying
`
`common sense to combine or rearrange the features of that prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in evaluating whether a claim would have been
`
`obvious, one must put himself in the position of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, i.e., the technical field of the invention. The person of ordinary skill is a
`
`hypothetical concept. He is not a genius. He thinks along the lines of conventional
`
`wisdom. It should be remembered, however, that a person of ordinary skill is also
`
`a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`24. One may also consider whether the invention was merely the
`
`predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known function. In
`
`addition, one may consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the
`
`prior art to make the modification or combination of elements in the patent. One
`
`may also consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to try.
`
`VI. THE ‘334 PATENT
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the overview of the ‘334 patent set forth in Section
`
`IV of the Petition for IPR. In my opinion, the overview accurately describes the
`
`claims of the ‘334 patent.
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`26. The ‘334 patent describes a spinal fusion implant of non-bone
`
`construction that is positionable in the interbody space between adjacent vertebrae.
`
`See, e.g., ‘334 patent, at 1:66 to 2:2. As claimed, the implant of the ‘334 patent has
`
`a distal wall, a proximal wall, and two sidewalls, with the walls being at least
`
`partly constructed from a radiolucent material. The length of the implant
`
`extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall is greater than 40 mm and is at
`
`least two and a half times greater than the maximum width of the implant, as
`
`defined by greatest distance between the two sidewalls. The upper and lower
`
`surfaces of the implant contain anti-migration elements that come in contact with
`
`the first and second vertebrae. At least one fusion aperture that is longer than it is
`
`wide and extends from the top surface to the bottom surface is included in the
`
`implant. The claimed implant also contains at least three radiopaque markers, with
`
`at least one in the proximal wall, one in the distal wall and one in the central region
`
`of the implant. In summary, the ‘334 patent generally combines well known
`
`features of intervertebral spinal fusion implants arranged in predictable ways.
`
`None of these features was new and their arrangement was also quite predictable
`
`and only a trivial change from prior spinal fusion implants, disclosing what was in
`
`my view common knowledge at the time.
`
`VII. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘334 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis, the claim terms of
`
`the ‘334 patent are given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” Stated another way, it is contemplated that the claim terms are
`
`understood by their plain and ordinary meanings except where construed in the
`
`specification. I also understand that this “plain and ordinary meaning” is with
`
`respect to how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim language. I
`
`have followed these principles in my analysis. I discuss a few terms below and
`
`what I understand to be Petitioner’s interpretation of these terms.
`
`A.
`
` Distal Wall / Proximal Wall
`
`28.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘334 patent, from which every claim at
`
`issue depends, recites that the implant includes a “distal wall” and a “proximal
`
`wall.” ‘334 patent, at 12:40. I believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “distal wall” is the side or
`
`end of the implant that generally enters the patient first, that is - the leading end
`
`wall, opposite the proximal or trailing end wall, and the end that is furthest from
`
`the surgeon upon insertion of the implant into the patient. It follows that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “proximal wall” is the side or
`
`end of the implant that enters patient last, the end opposite of the distal wall, and
`
`the end that is the closest wall to the surgeon upon insertion of the implant into the
`
`patient.
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Further, it is my understanding that during prosecution of a parent
`
`patent application, U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No.
`
`11/093,409 (the “‘409 Application”), to which the
`
`‘334 patent claims priority, the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) took the
`
`position that the apertures (1044) shown in the prior
`
`art spinal fusion implant figures disclosed in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,830,570 to Frey (the “‘570 patent”) –
`
`subsequently included in Frey, a continuation of the
`
`‘570 patent – reproduced at right are located on the proximal wall of the Frey
`
`implant. The Applicant did not challenge or otherwise take issue with the USPTO
`
`on its interpretation, thereby further buttressing my opinion that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the terms “distal wall” and “proximal wall” include the
`
`regions, for example, of the Frey implant disclosed above where apertures 1044
`
`and 1048 are located. It should be noted that in implants like those described in
`
`Frey the ends are fungible and may be interchangeable depending upon the manner
`
`in which they are inserted and the anatomy of the patient.
`
`B. Releasably Mate
`
`30. Claim 3 of the ‘334 patent, from which claims 4 and 5 depend, says
`
`that the “receiving aperture is configured to releasably mate with an inserter tool.”
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`‘334 patent, at 13:8-9. I believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “releasably
`
`mate” as used in the ‘334 patent means “an impermanent stabilized connection.”
`
`In my opinion, such an interpretation is consistent with the ‘334 patent
`
`specification, in which this term is used to describe the connecting relationship
`
`between the implant and insertion tool. See ‘334 patent, at 8:26-33 (“In order to
`
`secure the spinal fusion implant 10 onto the threaded connector 24 of the inserter
`
`instrument 20, the clinician employs the thumbwheel 34 to rotate the inserter shaft
`
`44 and threaded connector 24. The rotation of the threaded connector 24 will
`
`releasably engage the receiving aperture of the spinal fusion implant 10 and
`
`stabilize the insertion instrument 20 relative to the spinal fusion implant 10.”).
`
`C.
`
`Extend Generally Perpendicular to Said Longitudinal Length
`
`31. Claim 11 of the ‘334 patent recites that the plurality of ridges on the
`
`implant “extend generally perpendicular to said longitudinal length.” ‘334 patent,
`
`at 13:35-36. I believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`broadest reasonable meaning of this term is extending approximately in a direction
`
`that crosses a plane along the general direction of the longitudinal length of the
`
`implant at generally or roughly a right angle. The “longitudinal length,” although
`
`that term is somewhat redundant, in its broadest reasonable interpretation in this
`
`context, it is my opinion and as is common when referring to a spinal fusion
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`implant, is understood to mean the dimension measured from end to end of the
`
`implant, or in other words, from the insertion or leading end, i.e., the distal end, to
`
`the trailing end, i.e., the proximal end. This understanding is also consistent with
`
`many common definitions of “length” as a distance or measurement from end to
`
`end. For example, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
`
`Language Unabridged (2002) at page 1293, defines “length” to mean “the extent
`
`from end to end.” Similarly, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993)
`
`at page 1565 defines “length” as “the linear extend of anything as measured from
`
`end to end.”
`
`D.
`
`Elongate Body
`
`32. Claim 14 of the ‘334 patent, from which claim 15 depends, recites that
`
`“at least one of said three radiopaque markers comprises an elongate body
`
`extending generally perpendicular to said longitudinal length.” ‘334 patent, at
`
`13:42-45. Claim 17 recites, in relevant part, that the “first radiopaque marker has
`
`an elongate body” and the “second radiopaque marker has an elongate body.” Id.
`
`at 14:4-8. I believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “elongate body” means a body
`
`longer than it is wide.
`
`E. Generally Rectangular and Generally Oblong in Shape
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Claim 23 of the ‘334 patent recites that the “first fusion aperture is
`
`one of generally rectangular and generally oblong in shape.” ‘334 patent, at 14:27-
`
`29. I believe that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“generally rectangular and generally oblong in
`
`shape” means a shape having portions roughly approximating sides and being
`
`elongated in at least one dimension. My understanding is supported by my review
`
`of the file of the prior parent application of the ‘334 patent, in which I learned that
`
`the USPTO has previously taken the position that the fusion apertures (1018a,
`
`1018b) shown in the Frey prior art spinal fusion implant figure reproduced above
`
`are generally rectangular and elongated in at least one direction.
`
`F.
`
`A Lateral Width of the Distal End of Said Distal Wall/A Lateral
`
`Width of Said Proximal End of Said Proximal Wall
`
`34. Claim 24 recites that the “maximum lateral width of said implant is
`
`greater than a lateral width of the distal end of said distal wall and is greater than a
`
`lateral width of the proximal end of said proximal wall.” ‘334 patent, at 14:31-33.
`
`I believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of these terms means that the maximum lateral width of
`
`the implant found in the middle of the implant is greater than a width of the most
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`distal end of the distal wall extending in a direction from the first side wall to the
`
`second sidewall and is greater than a width of the most proximal end of the
`
`proximal wall extending in a direction from the first side wall to the second
`
`sidewall.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`35. At the time of the alleged invention, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art related to the technology of the ‘334 patent would have had an undergraduate
`
`degree in Mechanical or Biomedical Engineering or equivalent and at least two to
`
`three years of experience with interbody spinal fusion implants or a medical degree
`
`or the equivalent and at least two to three years of experience with interbody spinal
`
`fusion implants and related procedures. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art need not necessarily have formal education if they have an equivalent amount
`
`of experience in medical device design. So, for example, approximately four years
`
`of medical device design experience could replace an undergraduate degree in that
`
`field.
`
`IX. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0165550 (“Frey”)
`
`36. Frey was published on November 7, 2002, more than one year prior to
`
`the earliest filing date of the ‘334 patent. I understand that Frey therefore is prior
`
`art to the ‘334 patent.
`
`ACTIVE 21067132v10 08/14/2013 2:52 PM
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Frey describes an intervertebral spinal fusion implant constructed
`
`from a biocompatible, radiolucent material. See Frey, at ¶¶ [0156], [0181]. The
`
`Frey implant has a generally elongated shape with a longitudinal length that is
`
`greater than its maximum lateral width, and includes a distal wall (designated as
`
`leading end wall 1406), a proximal wall (designated as trailing end wall 1408), and
`
`two sidewalls (designated as posterior wall 1402 and anterior wall 1404). See
`
`Frey, at ¶ [0151]. The implant is described for use in various “approaches to the
`
`disc space, such as lateral, anterior or antero-lateral approaches” for insertion of
`
`implant 1400 as well as “for insertion from a poster-lateral or uni-lateral approach
`
`into [a] disc space . . . .” Frey, at ¶ [01