`
`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
`
`Acting Director of Cardiothoracic Surgery Laboratory Investigation at the University of
`
`Missouri.
`
`
`
`1
`
`LIFECOR905-1003
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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
`
`Dec. 2003 in Paris, France. I have presented at 33 colloquiums and symposiums, including
`
`presentations on ventricular and atrial defibrillation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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.
`
`III.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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) Bach
`
`(Appendix D); (4) Schuder (Appendix E); (5) De Coriolis (Appendix F); (6) Ukkestad
`
`(Appendix G); and (7) Gliner ‘904 (Appendix H).
`
`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-H, 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 led 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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.
`
`(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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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.
`
`VII. 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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.
`
`(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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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 researches 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. Then at some later point, the shock is
`
`terminated.
`
`(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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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 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 from a single capacitance to alternate
`
`between positive and negative polarities. Another way researchers modified biphasic
`
`waveforms was by adjusting the 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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.
`
`VIII. THE ‘905 PATENT
`
`
`
`(35) The ‘905 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. (‘905 Patent at 1:9-29). The electrical shock
`
`is applied as a biphasic truncated exponential waveform. (Id. at 5:1-37, FIG. 5). To 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 6:55-64). During the first phase of the waveform,
`
`an electrical parameter, such as voltage, current, or charge monitored over time across the
`
`electrodes, is checked. (Id. at 7:5-36). The first phase is truncated when e.g., voltage,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`reaches a predetermined level. (Id. at 7:5-13). 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 7:14-26).
`
`(36) The ‘905 Patent claims priority to an application filed August 6, 1993. The
`
`stated main difference between earlier electrotherapy apparatus and methods and the ‘905
`
`Patent is the disclosure in the ‘905 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 2:34-56). Automatically
`
`compensating for patient impedance differences maximizes therapeutic efficacy across an
`
`entire population of patients. (Id. at 2:3-31). Methods and apparatus for automatically
`
`compensating for patient impedance differences were well-known by the time of the ‘905
`
`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
`
`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 3:3-25).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(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 results in discharging the capacitors across
`
`the electrodes until a minimum end current corresponding to the predetermined energy
`
`output is reached.
`
`(39) Claim 1 of the ‘905 patent refers to adjusting energy delivered to a patient
`
`based on a value of an electrical parameter. The particular values for terminating a
`
`waveform in Bell could be adjusted or changed via an “energy control & computer 34” and
`
`“energy selector 36” and such changes would in turn change the value of the particular
`
`electrical parameter for ending a phase of the Bell waveform. Also, Bell discloses
`
`terminating the discharge if a pre-selected time is reached, which then truncates the shock,
`
`thereby delivering less energy than selected. (For example, Bell at 4:3-19.). Thus, Bell
`
`discloses the feature of claim 1, of adjusting energy delivered to a patient based on a value
`
`of an electrical parameter.
`
`(40) Claims 2 and 4-11 of the ‘905 Patent include features relating to a multiphasic
`
`waveform. Such waveforms had become known, in the time between Bell (around 1974)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`and the filing of the ‘905 Patent, as a preferred waveform for achieving defibrillation, as
`
`recognized by the ‘905 Patent itself and described in Schuder (Appendix E) and 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, Schuder, 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 that had developed over those years. For
`
`example, the Schuder group had demonstrated that biphasic waveforms caused less post-
`
`shock dysfunction than monophasic waveforms, which is a very good feature of an external
`
`defibrillator.
`
`(41) de Coriolis also discloses a defibrillator circuit that delivers defibrillation
`
`shocks to the heart as biphasic truncated exponential waveforms. (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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`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).
`
`(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[/ending]
`
`parameter of a waveform phase depends on a value of the electrical parameter,” as recited
`
`in claims 4 and 9 of the ‘905 Patent.
`
`(43) The feature of shaping the waveform as described in claims 4 and 9 is also
`
`disclosed in Bach. For example, Bach discusses a “circuit for generating a biphasic voltage
`
`pulse to restore rhythm to a fibrillating heart, the circuit utilizing a capacitor for providing the
`
`voltage pulse. . . . The circuit further comprises an output sensing circuit that senses the
`
`exponential decay of the capacitor and signals a control circuit to switch the thyristors such
`
`that after one thyristor applies the voltage pulse to the heart in a first polarity, the other
`
`thyristor applies the voltage pulse in the opposite polarity” Bach at Abstract. In Bach, the
`
`initial voltage of the second phase (Vpk2) begins at “50 to 95% of Vpk1,” the initial voltage
`
`of the first phase. (Bach at 2:1-22). In other words, the initial voltage of the second phase
`
`depends the value of voltage in the first phase, and the circuit adjusts the energy delivered
`
`to match that programmed by the user. As such, Bach discloses “shaping the waveform so
`
`that an initial[/ending] parameter of a waveform phase depends on a value of the electrical
`
`parameter,” and a combination of Bell, Schuder (showing biphasic waveform), and Bach
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`(also showing biphasic waveform) teaches every feature of claim 4. I have already
`
`discussed why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use a biphasic
`
`waveform, which had been determined to be therapeutically effective by researchers such
`
`as Schuder after the date of the Bell patent, with the control approach of the Bell patent. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to incorporate the shaping of
`
`Bach so as to make the two phases of the waveform correspond to basic waveform delivery
`
`values like voltage, both for each waveform, and the waveforms in relation to each other,
`
`that would improve the therapeutic effectiveness of the waveform.
`
`(44) Various references, such as de Coriolis disclose monitoring voltage over time
`
`as a 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, to generate a waveform with certain parameters.
`
`(45) Also, Bach, like Bell, describes discharging an electrical source until the end
`
`of a predetermined time period or until an electrical unit measured across the electrodes
`
`reaches a predetermined level, whichever occurs first (Bach, 2:25-58). Like Schuder, Bach
`
`describes delivering a multiphasic waveform. (Id.). Bach further describes adjusting
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`current during the multiphasic waveform (Id., 2:29-36). It is well-known that current is
`
`related to voltage via Ohm’s law. Therefore, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill,
`
`reading Bach, would recognize the direct connection between adjusting current and voltage.
`
`(46) Claims 3 and 6 of the ‘905 patent recite the use of multiple capacitors in a
`
`defibrillator. Both Ukkestad and de Coriolis disclose defibrillators using multiple capacitors.
`
`The use of one capacitor versus multiple capacitors would have been an obvious design
`
`choice at the time that depended on the capacitance values desired to be achieved and
`
`factors such as size, cost, efficiency, and available parts. In general engineering, it was
`
`known to use single capacitors or multiple connected capacitors, and was also known in
`
`defibrillator applications. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to use multiple capacitors in place of a single capacitor so as to achieve general
`
`design goals that included cost and availability of components and size and electrical
`
`efficiency of a capacitor assembly.
`
`(47)
`
`I have also reviewed the Pless patent. In my opinion, that patent discloses all
`
`the features of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-11. The remaining claims 3 and 6 recite electrical
`
`parameters corresponding to voltage and current, and I have discussed the teachings and
`
`motivations to use such teachings above. As for Pless, it shows a method for delivering
`
`electrotherapy by discharging an energy source across electrodes connected to an energy
`
`source, e.g., its Abstract notes: “The device includes defibrillation electrode means adapted
`
`to be connected to the heart for delivering a multiphasic defibrillation waveform thereto.” In
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`US Patent 5,749,905
`
`Pless, a “trailing voltage detector” tracks voltage decay while a waveform is delivered, so as
`
`to terminate the positive pulse of the multiphasic waveform, thus it “monitor[s] a patient-
`
`dependent electrical parameter during the discharging step,” as stated in claims 1, 4, and 9.
`
`Finally, it adjusts energy delivered based on a value of the electrical parameter (claim 1),
`
`and shapes the wavef