`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WAYNE C. McDANIEL, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`(1) My name is Wayne Charles McDaniel. I am currently Associate Director of
`
`the Technology Management and Industry Relations office at the University of Missouri-
`
`Columbia. I am also an Adjunct Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`University of Missouri. During my career, I have worked extensively in biomedical
`
`engineering research involving cardiac therapy and defibrillation. I am expert in the areas of
`
`internal atrial and ventricular defibrillation, external ventricular defibrillation, experimental
`
`methods for defibrillation research, and cardiac safety of stun guns.
`
`(2)
`
`I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Biology, a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering with a biomedical engineering emphasis, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in
`
`Electrical Engineering with a biomedical engineering emphasis from the University of
`
`Missouri-Columbia.
`
`(3)
`
`From 2001 to 2011, I held the position of Senior Licensing and Business
`
`Development Associate of the Technology Management and Industry Relations office at the
`
`University of Missouri-Columbia. From 1987 to 2001, I was a Research Assistant Professor
`
`of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Missouri-Columbia. From 1993 to 2001, I was
`
`
`
`1
`
`LIFECOR904-1003
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`Acting Director of Cardiothoracic Surgery Laboratory Investigation at the University of
`
`Missouri.
`
`(4)
`
`I have over 35 years of experience in the biomedical engineering field and
`
`have published extensively in electrical ventricular defibrillation. For over twenty-five years,
`
`I have conducted and received numerous grants for research relating to cardiac therapy and
`
`defibrillation.
`
`(5)
`
`I was one of the pioneers of the biphasic waveform that is now used in
`
`virtually all automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators and virtually all transthoracic
`
`defibrillators, including automatic external defibrillators.
`
`(6)
`
`I have authored or co-authored 34 published articles relating to cardiac
`
`therapy and defibrillation, including articles titled “Transthoracic Defibrillation of Dogs with
`
`Edmark, Biphasic, and Quadriphasic waveforms,” “Double-pulse transthoracic defibrillation
`
`in the calf using percent fibrillatory cycle length as spacing determinate,” and “Relationship
`
`between efficacy and frequency domain characteristics of defibrillatory shocks.”
`
`(7)
`
`I have given 46 presentations at national or international meetings, including
`
`a presentation entitled “Multiphasic truncated exponential waveforms require less peak
`
`current for atrial defibrillation than optimal biphasic waveforms” to the 22nd Annual Scientific
`
`Sessions of the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology, in Boston,
`
`Massachusetts in May of 2001 and a presentation entitled “Comparison of the Efficacy of
`
`Two Transthoracic Biphasic Waveform Defibrillators” to the Europace 2003 Congress in
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`Dec. 2003 in Paris, France. I have presented at 33 colloquiums and symposiums, including
`
`presentations on ventricular and atrial defibrillation.
`
`(8)
`
`I am the sole inventor on U.S. Patent No. 6,738,664 entitled “Method of and
`
`apparatus for atrial and ventricular defibrillation or cardioversion with an electrical waveform
`
`optimized in the frequency domain,” which issued on May 18, 2004.
`
`(9)
`
`A copy of my C.V. is attached as Appendix A.
`
`II.
`
`STATUS AS AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESS
`
`(10)
`
`I have been retained in this matter by Fish & Richardson P.C. to provide
`
`various opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,735,879 (“the ‘879 patent); U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,749,905 (“the ‘905 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,047,212 (“the ‘212 patent); U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,607,454 (“the ‘454 patent); U.S. Patent No. 5,836,978 (“the ‘978 patent”); U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,749,904 (“the ‘904 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 5,593,427 (“the ‘427 patent”); and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,803,927 (“the ‘927 patent”) (collectively, “the Philips Waveform Patents”). I am being
`
`compensated at the rate of $300 per hour for my work. My fee is not contingent on the
`
`outcome of this matter or on any of the opinions I provide below.
`
`(11)
`
`I have been advised that Fish & Richardson represents ZOLL Lifecor Corp. in
`
`this matter. I have no financial interest in ZOLL Lifecor Corp.
`
`(12)
`
`I have been advised that Philips Electronics North America Corp. (“Philips” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) owns the Philips Waveform Patents. I have no financial interest in Philips
`
`Electronics North America Corp. or in the Philips Waveform Patents.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`III.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`(13)
`
`In arriving at the opinions set forth herein, I have reviewed the Philips
`
`Waveform Patents and relevant portions of their respective file histories.
`
`(14) Additional materials that I have reviewed and relied upon in arriving at the
`
`opinions set forth herein are: (1) Bell (Appendix B); (2) Pless (Appendix C); (3) Kroll
`
`(Appendix D); (4) Schuder (Appendix E); (5) Swanson (Appendix F); (6) De Coriolis
`
`(Appendix G); (7) Ideker (Appendix H); (8) Fain (Appendix I); (9) Baker (Appendix J); (10)
`
`Packer (Appendix K); (11) Hahn (Appendix L); (12) Bach (Appendix M); (13) Adams
`
`(Appendix N); (14) Herleikson (Appendix O); and (15) Cameron (Appendix P).
`
`IV.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`(15) Based on my review of the Philips Waveform Patents and the materials listed
`
`in Appendices B-P, I conclude that the relevant field of the Philips Waveform Patents for
`
`purposes of my testimony is waveforms used for defibrillation, and apparatus and
`
`techniques for generating and delivering such waveforms. I have been advised that the
`
`relevant timeframe is August 1993, which is the date that the applications that lead to the
`
`Philips Waveform Patents were filed.
`
`(16) As described in Section I above, I have extensive experience in the field of
`
`defibrillation waveforms, and apparatus and techniques for generating and delivering such
`
`waveforms.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`(17)
`
`I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” is a
`
`mythical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with
`
`reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. Here, the relevant
`
`field is waveforms used for defibrillation, and apparatus and techniques for generating and
`
`delivering such waveforms. Because these devices are used to deliver a shock to a
`
`patient’s heart, people engaged in developing these devices and related methods need to
`
`have a high level of skill. Based upon my experience in this area, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in this field at the relevant time frame would have had an advanced (post-Bachelor’s)
`
`degree in electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, or some closely related field, with
`
`at least 5 years of work experience in one or more of these fields, and at least 5 years of
`
`experience in developing (e.g., designing or implementing) medical devices for defibrillation,
`
`pacing, and/or cardiac medical devices (which experience could have overlapped in whole
`
`or part with the at least 5 years of experience in the fields of electrical engineering or
`
`biomedical engineering), or the equivalent of such experience. The person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art also must have been intimately familiar with the design of, theory behind,
`
`principles of operation of, and intended use of defibrillators, as well as the principles of
`
`human physiology that underlie the indications of use for defibrillators (cardiac arrest and
`
`ventricular fibrillation), and the theories as to why the delivery of certain shocks may be
`
`useful to correct these conditions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(18) Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. Indeed, in addition to being a person of at
`
`least ordinary skill in the art, I have worked closely with many such persons over the course
`
`of my career, and I have regularly taught material fundamental to the art in my role as
`
`professor and researcher over the past 35 years.
`
`VI.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`
`(19) Sudden cardiac death is the most common mode of death in our adult
`
`population, accounting for an estimated 30 percent of all natural deaths. Sudden cardiac
`
`arrest occurs when the heart stops beating in an organized way and instead begins
`
`fibrillating in a random manner. Many of the hearts of sudden cardiac death victims appear
`
`essentially normal at the time of autopsy, causing some investigators to refer to them as
`
`hearts that were “too good to die.” One major cause of sudden cardiac death is a
`
`phenomenon called ventricular fibrillation (VF) which occurs in structurally good hearts over
`
`900 times a day in the U.S. alone in out-of-hospital patients. In VF, the individual muscle
`
`fibers of the heart no longer contract in unison, but rather there are waves of contraction
`
`that run randomly through the heart. A direct consequence of VF is the inability of the heart
`
`to pump blood, which means the patient will suffer irreversible brain damage and then death
`
`if not treated promptly.
`
`(20) Electrical defibrillation is a treatment of choice for ventricular fibrillation and
`
`consists of delivering a therapeutic dose of electrical energy to the patient’s heart, which
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`depolarizes a critical mass of the heart muscle. This depolarization terminates the
`
`dysrhythmia, allowing the patient’s normal sinus rhythm to be reestablished. Defibrillators,
`
`which were first developed in the mid-1900s, are devices that restore normal contractions in
`
`the heart muscle by delivering a powerful shock via electrodes attached to the patient. The
`
`goal of a defibrillation shock is to deliver the appropriate amount of current to the patient to
`
`reestablish normal sinus rhythm, while minimizing damage to the patient’s heart. The shock
`
`is generally delivered by charging an energy source, such as a capacitor over time, and
`
`then closing a switch to release the charge. A shock takes just a fraction of a second.
`
`(21) The flow of electrical current released during the shock has a shape that can
`
`be characterized by a time versus voltage graph that shows the “waveform” of the shock.
`
`For example, if a shock is delivered freely, the “waveform” is simply an exponentially
`
`decaying shape that approaches zero after a relatively long period of time. For successful
`
`defibrillation, the amount of current delivered to the heart varies between patients on
`
`account of a given patient’s body mass, temperature and diaphoresis—collectively referred
`
`to as patient impedance. To account for patient impedance, the waveform of the shock can
`
`be modified, or shaped, by altering the initial and/or terminal voltage used in delivering the
`
`shock, as well as the duration of the shock. Such shaping allows one to modify the amount
`
`of current released into the patient.
`
`(22) Modern defibrillators can either be external units, where electrodes are placed
`
`on the patient’s torso to deliver a shock to the patient’s heart, or internal devices, in which
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`case a small electrical impulse generator is implanted into the body of a patient at risk of
`
`cardiac arrhythmia. The implantable device monitors the patient’s cardiac rhythms and
`
`automatically delivers a therapeutic shock if dysrhythmia is detected. Because external
`
`defibrillators indirectly deliver therapeutic shocks to the heart (i.e., through layers of fat,
`
`tissue, and skin), it is important to be able to modify different aspects of the waveform for
`
`patients of different sizes and body types.
`
`Brief History of Defibrillators
`
`(23) The earliest recorded defibrillation in humans with internal electrodes was
`
`accomplished in 1947. The first electrical waveform used for defibrillation was 60 Hz
`
`alternating current (AC), which is also used as standard household current. Similarly, the
`
`first recorded defibrillation of a human with external electrodes was accomplished in 1956,
`
`also by an AC waveform defibrillator.
`
`(24) AC waveform defibrillators were replaced in the 1960s by the development of
`
`the Lown and Edmark waveform defibrillators. These defibrillators comprised a resistor (R),
`
`an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C), and were therefore referred to as RLC defibrillators.
`
`RLC defibrillators were considered to be an advancement over AC defibrillators in that they
`
`were portable and did not need to be tethered to a power line. Both the Lown and Edmark
`
`waveforms delivered predominantly monophasic waveforms. However, under certain
`
`patient resistances, one or more negative phases would be observed. Therefore, both
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`Edmark and Lown waveform defibrillators would generate multiphasic waveforms under the
`
`right circumstances.
`
`(25)
`
`In 1966, John Schuder et al. published a study of the transthoracic
`
`defibrillation efficacy of triangular and trapezoidal waveforms in dogs. This study followed a
`
`similar study of monophasic square waveforms. This study found that a long slow decay on
`
`a waveform would reduce the efficacy, whereas truncating the descending triangular
`
`waveform yielded a superior waveform. This study laid the foundation for capacitor
`
`discharge defibrillators not containing an inductor.
`
`(26)
`
`In 1971, Schuder et al. extended this work to true capacitive discharge
`
`waveforms (as opposed to triangular waveforms above) and found that truncation of long-
`
`duration waveforms significantly improved defibrillation success. The Schuder lab
`
`pioneered this monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) waveform (which is sometimes
`
`called the Schuder waveform) for defibrillation. One advantage to the MTE waveform was
`
`the reduction of the peak current, which was believed to cause cardiac damage with the
`
`Edmark and Lown waveforms. Another advantage to the MTE waveform (when
`
`implemented in clinical devices) was that one could compensate for differing thoracic
`
`impedance values seen with different patients by delivering a constant value of delivered
`
`energy across a wide range of patient impedances. This was done by monitoring a patient-
`
`related electrical parameter and terminating the shock based on that measured value.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(27) Around the same time, the Schuder lab published a research study of the first
`
`implantable defibrillator and incorporated the MTE waveform in that defibrillator. The MTE
`
`waveform was particularly well suited for the implantable defibrillator, in that it could be
`
`generated without the use of an inductor, which would be too large and heavy for use in an
`
`implantable device.
`
`(28)
`
`In the early 1980s, John Schuder, in collaboration with Janice Jones,
`
`theorized that a biphasic waveform would cause less post-shock dysfunction than the MTE
`
`waveform for defibrillation. Biphasic waveforms differ from monophasic waveforms in that
`
`the shock delivered to the patient’s heart in a monophasic shock is delivered in one
`
`direction only from one electrode to the other. In biphasic waveform defibrillation, the shock
`
`passes in one direction from one electrode to the next and then reverses direction, traveling
`
`back to the original electrode. That is, in a biphasic waveform the pulse alternates between
`
`positive and negative polarities.
`
`(29) The Schuder lab began a series of studies of the biphasic waveform with the
`
`first study involving what are now called biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms.
`
`The first study involving implantable electrodes was promising (published in 1981), so the
`
`Schuder lab modified its high power research defibrillator to enable it to generate biphasic
`
`waveforms for external defibrillation of human-sized animals (device made public in 1982).
`
`The first study with the modified research defibrillator involved symmetric rectangular
`
`biphasic waveforms (equal constant currents and equal phase durations), which was
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`published in 1983. Then a study of asymmetric rectangular biphasic waveforms (unequal
`
`constant currents and equal phase durations) was published in 1984.
`
`(30) The studies of Schuder and Jones attracted the attention of both an
`
`implantable defibrillator manufacturer (Cardiac Pacemaker Inc.) and an external defibrillator
`
`manufacturer (Physio Control). Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. (CPI) and Physio Control worked
`
`collaboratively with the Schuder lab, the Jones lab, and other labs such as Ray Ideker’s lab.
`
`About once per year during this time period, representatives of each of the labs and each of
`
`the companies met for a research conference. It was known to all researchers involved at
`
`the time that the biphasic waveforms showed promise to dramatically improve both the
`
`implantable defibrillators made by CPI and the transthoracic defibrillators made by Physio
`
`Control.
`
`(31)
`
`In 1984 the Schuder lab published its study of asymmetric biphasic truncated
`
`exponential (BTE) waveforms (exponentially decaying currents and equal phase durations)
`
`used in the transthoracic defibrillation of 100 kg calves. This study examined the efficacy of
`
`several waveforms that were capable of being generated by a single capacitor bank.
`
`Specifically, when a single capacitor BTE waveform is generated clinically, a single
`
`capacitor bank is used, and the voltage and current delivered to a patient decay as the
`
`capacitor discharges. At some point during this discharge, the shock is interrupted and the
`
`polarity is reversed before reinitiating the shock. At some later point, the shock is
`
`terminated.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(32) By 1985 it was known that biphasic waveforms were an improvement over
`
`monophasic waveforms for both internal defibrillation and external defibrillation. It was
`
`further known that the best known method of generating biphasic waveforms for both
`
`internal and external defibrillation involved the use of a single capacitor biphasic truncated
`
`exponential waveform. The Schuder lab’s 1984 BTE waveform study further established
`
`that the individual pulse durations ranging from 2.8 to 7.54 ms (overall pulse durations of 5.6
`
`to 15.08 ms) showed positive results. The study also showed that the ideal capacitance
`
`values for human defibrillation were in the range of 64 to 196 microfarads. The general
`
`recognition of the biphasic waveform as a more effective defibrillation waveform was again
`
`illustrated in a 1988 paper from the Schuder lab entitled “General Superiority of Biphasic
`
`Over Uniphasic Shocks in Cardiac Defibrillation.” This paper summarized all of the studies
`
`to date of biphasic waveforms for defibrillation and concluded that biphasic waveforms were
`
`more effective for defibrillation than monophasic waveforms.
`
`(33) Following these advancements, further methods of modifying the biphasic
`
`waveform have subsequently been employed in defibrillators. For example, internal and
`
`external defibrillators containing an output circuit having four legs arranged in the form of
`
`the letter “H” have been developed. “H-bridge” circuits were employed in defibrillators to
`
`conduct a range of defibrillation pulse energies. Selectively switching on pairs of the
`
`switches in an H-bridge circuit allows the pulse to alternate between positive and negative
`
`polarities. Another way researchers modified biphasic waveforms was by adjusting the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`truncation or “tilt” of the waveform. Tilt specifically refers to the percentage difference
`
`between the ending voltage value and the initial voltage value. Modifications to the tilt of the
`
`waveform allow for control of the amount of energy delivered to the patient, thereby
`
`reducing the energy requirements of the defibrillator and preventing myocardial damage
`
`from overexposure.
`
`(34)
`
`In sum, by August of 1993 it was well known that one could compensate for
`
`differing patients’ impedances by (a) varying the predetermined duration of time over which
`
`discharge occurred, (b) measuring voltage decay (or equivalent electrical parameter) and
`
`stopping discharge when it reached a predetermined level, or (c) various combinations of
`
`both. At the same time, by 1993 it would have been obvious to apply knowledge and
`
`techniques learned from monophasic waveform research and implementations to biphasic
`
`waveform implementations, and to apply knowledge and techniques learned from
`
`implantable defibrillator research and implementations to external defibrillator
`
`implementations.
`
`VII.
`
`THE ‘904 PATENT
`
`
`
`(35) The ‘904 Patent is entitled “Electrotherapy Method Utilizing Patient
`
`Dependent Electrical Parameter,” and its disclosure relates to an electrotherapy method and
`
`apparatus for delivering an electrical shock to a patient’s irregularly beating heart to cause
`
`the heart to resume its natural beating rhythm. (‘904 Patent at 1:13-25). The electrical
`
`shock is applied as a biphasic truncated exponential waveform. (Id. at 6:24-60, FIG. 5). To
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`deliver the waveform, an energy source, such as one or more of a plurality of capacitors, is
`
`charged to a predetermined voltage, and subsequently discharged through electrodes that
`
`are in electrical contact with the patient. (Id. at 12:21-29). During the first phase of the
`
`waveform, an electrical parameter, such as voltage, current, or charge, is measured across
`
`the electrodes. (Id. at 6:36-49, 10:66-11:22). The first phase is truncated when the
`
`measured electrical parameter reaches a predetermined level. (Id. at 7:21-35). The second
`
`phase of the waveform can have an initial parameter, such a start current, that is based on
`
`the electrical parameter measured during the first phase. (Id. at 7:55-58).
`
`(36) The ‘904 Patent claims priority to an application filed August 6, 1993. The
`
`stated main difference between earlier electrotherapy apparatus and methods and the ‘904
`
`Patent is the disclosure in the ‘904 Patent of an external defibrillator and defibrillation
`
`method that automatically compensates for patient impedance differences by changing the
`
`nature of the delivered electrotherapeutic pulse. (Id. at 3:19-23). Automatically
`
`compensating for patient impedance differences maximizes therapeutic efficacy across an
`
`entire population of patients. (Id. at 2:29-44). Methods and apparatus for automatically
`
`compensating for patient impedance differences were well-known by the time of the ‘427
`
`Patent’s priority date.
`
`(37)
`
`I have reviewed Bell (Appendix B). Bell is one of many prior art examples
`
`disclosing an external defibrillator that measures electrical parameters, e.g., voltage and
`
`current, while delivering a shock to the patient and uses the measured electrical parameters
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`to determine when to stop delivering the shock. (Bell at 2:5-13, 3:3-13, FIGs. 1 and 2). In
`
`particular, Bell discloses that when the delivered energy, which is computed from voltage
`
`and current on the electrodes, reaches a predetermined energy output, four storage
`
`capacitors 22 are disconnected from the patient. (Id. at 3:3-13, 3:30-32).
`
`(38)
`
`It was well-known that the voltage across and the current through the
`
`electrodes decay due to the natural discharge pattern of the capacitors, from which the
`
`voltage and current originate, and that, when the delivered energy reaches a predetermined
`
`energy level, the voltage and current on the electrodes have decayed to corresponding end
`
`voltage and current levels. Accordingly, based upon my experience and knowledge, it is my
`
`view that a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading Bell, would have recognized that
`
`discharging capacitors across the electrodes necessarily results in discharging the
`
`capacitors across the electrodes until a minimum end current corresponding to the
`
`predetermined energy output is reached.
`
`(39) Claims 4 and 11 of the ‘904 Patent states that the patient-dependent electrical
`
`parameter is charge. Bell discloses computing the energy delivered to the patient from
`
`instantaneous voltage and current measurements. (Id. at 3:5-9). Bell multiplies the voltage
`
`and current to yield power, and then integrates the power with time to yield energy. (Id. at
`
`3:66-4:5). In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to integrate current with time to yield charge and make decisions based on delivered charge
`
`since doing so is merely a trivial variation of the method disclosed in Bell.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(40) Claims 5 and 15-17 of the ‘904 Patent include features relating to a
`
`multiphasic waveform. Such waveforms had become known in the time between Bell and
`
`the filing of the ‘904 Patent as a preferred waveform for achieving defibrillation, as
`
`recognized by the ‘904 Patent itself and described in de Coriolis (Appendix G; 5:14-17, 31-
`
`33, FIG. 4). Based on my knowledge and experience in this field, and my review of Bell and
`
`de Coriolis, I believe that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
`
`been motivated to combine de Coriolis’ biphasic waveform with Bell’s waveform control
`
`scheme because of the recognized increased effectiveness of biphasic waveforms over
`
`monophasic waveforms.
`
`(41) de Coriolis discloses a defibrillator circuit that delivers defibrillation shocks as
`
`biphasic truncated exponential waveforms to the heart. (de Coriolis at 5:6-17, FIGs. 4 and
`
`5). The circuit includes a capacitor bank with two capacitors that are connected to
`
`electrodes using electrode leads 26 and 33. (Id. at 6:21-23, 7:66-8:6, and FIG. 5). Current
`
`is conducted along lead 33, through the heart, and along lead 26, which are all connected in
`
`series across the capacitor bank. (Id. at 7:66-8:6 and FIG. 5). During the first phase of
`
`discharge, the voltage across the capacitor bank is compared to a reference voltage V2,
`
`and the capacitors are allowed to discharge to the reference voltage V2. (Id. at 5:31-42,
`
`6:32-48, 6:63-64, 8:7-15, 9:48-49). In the second phase, voltage V2 is applied to the heart
`
`until the capacitors have discharged down to voltage V3, at which point the second phase is
`
`truncated. (Id. at 5:42-51, 9:1-3, 9:58-59).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(42)
`
`In my opinion, the comparator circuit performs the function of “monitoring a
`
`patient-dependent electrical parameter during the discharging step,” where the parameter is
`
`voltage (Id. at 6:32-48, 63-64, 8:7-14), and “shaping the waveform so that an initial
`
`parameter of a waveform phase depends on a value of the electrical parameter,” as recited
`
`in claims 7 and 9 of the ‘904 Patent.
`
`(43) As I noted above, de Coriolis discloses measuring voltage as the patient-
`
`dependent electrical parameter. (Id. at 6:32-48, 63-64, 8:7-14). Measuring current as the
`
`patient-dependent electrical parameter was also widely known for controlling the shape of
`
`the waveform. For example, Bell discloses measuring current to generate a waveform that
`
`is truncated when a selected energy level is reached. (Bell at 3:5-11). Accordingly, based
`
`upon my experience, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to include Bell’s current measurement in controlling the shape of the
`
`waveform, as described in de Coriolis, to generate a waveform with certain parameters.
`
`(44) de Coriolis discloses generating a waveform where the first phase is
`
`truncated at a reference voltage and the second phase starts from the reference voltage.
`
`(de Coriolis at 8:7-15, 9:1-3, 9:48-49, 9:58-59, FIG. 4). It was well-known that voltage
`
`changes across a capacitor in a resistor-capacitor circuit are associated with current
`
`changes through the resistive load, and that starting or ending a phase of the waveform at a
`
`minimum voltage level is the functional equivalent of starting or ending the phase at a
`
`minimum current level. Accordingly, based upon my experience and knowledge, it is my
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that starting or
`
`ending a phase at a minimum voltage level necessarily results in starting or ending the
`
`phase at a minimum current level, as recited in claim 17 of the ‘904 Patent.
`
`(45)
`
`I have been asked to compare claim 7 of the ‘904 Patent with claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,607,454 (Cameron; Appendix P; “the 454 Patent”). Claim 7 relates to a
`
`method for delivering electrotherapy to a patient, while claim 1 relates to a method of
`
`applying electrotherapy to a patient. The only substantive differences between the two
`
`claims are that claim 7 recites a “plurality of capacitors,” while claim 1 recites an “energy
`
`source,” and claim 7 recites the “shaping function” common to both claims more generally.
`
`(46) Based on my knowledge and experience in this field, the fact that claim 7
`
`recites the “shaping function” common to both claims more generally tells me that claim 1
`
`describes a species of shaping function that falls within the genus of shaping functions
`
`described in claim 1.
`
`(47) Regarding the recitation of a “plurality of capacitors” in claim 7 versus an
`
`“energy source” in claim 1, it is my opinion, based upon my knowledge and experience in
`
`this field, that there is no significant difference between the two claims despite the use of
`
`different terms. Capacitors were known to be typical structures for delivering
`
`electrotherapy, particularly therapy in multiphasic waveforms delivered as defibrillating
`
`shocks, because capacitors could be easily charged relatively slowly (e.g., by outlet power
`
`or batteries), and discharged extremely quickly, as is required to create a successful
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`defibrillating pulse. In addition, multi-capacitor defibrillators were well-known, as was the
`
`ability to replace one capacitor with multiple capacitors to provide the same level of
`
`electrical performance (e.g., same number of microFarads). (See, e.g., Bell at FIGs. 2 and
`
`5; and de Coriolis at FIGs. 3 and 5).
`
`(48)
`
`I have been asked to compare claim 1 of the ‘904 Patent with claim 55 of the
`
`‘454 Patent. The only substantive differences between the claims are (a) claim 1 recites a
`
`“plurality of capacitors,” whereas claim 55 recites an “energy source,” and (b) claim 1 recites
`
`“adjusting the energy delivered to the patient,” whereas claim 55 recites “adjusting a
`
`waveform parameter” that is “time for delivering a predetermined quantity of charge to a
`
`patient.” I have dealt with the first difference in ¶ 47, above. With respect to the second
`
`difference, it is my opinion, based upon my experience and knowledge in the field, that there
`
`is no meaningful difference between tailoring discharge for a patient by adjusting energy
`
`delivered versus adjusting time for delivering charge (as they are mathematically related).
`
`In this regard, I note that there was only a small subset of discharge parameters that could
`
`be monitored and adjusted (voltage levels at various points, current, charge, energy, and
`
`time of terminating the phases). From a design standpoint, these parameters were
`
`interchangeable. The selection of one parameter out of this limited set of choices would
`
`have been a routine design choice that a skilled person would have made based on
`
`convenience to the designer.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,904
`
`(49)
`
`I have been asked to compare claim 15 of the ‘904 patent and claim 9 of the
`
`‘454 patent. Claim 9 discloses everything recited in claim 15 verbatim with 3 exceptions:
`
`(a) claim 9 recites monitoring of delivered “current,” rather than the more general “patient-
`
`dependent parameter” recited in claim 15; (b) claim 9 recites a “multiphasic truncated
`
`exponential waveform” instead of just a “multiphasic waveform” recited in claim 15; and (c)
`
`claim 9 recites “controlling … based on the current delivered so that the waveform has at
`
`least one of a minimum phase start current or a minimum phase end current,” rather than
`
`“controlling the duration of a waveform phase based on a value of the e