Page 439
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` GEA PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` STEUBEN FOODS, INC.
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
`
` Case IPR2014-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013
` Case IPR2014-00043
` U.S. Patent No. 6,475,435
` Case IPR2014-00051
` U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591
` Case IPR2014-00054
` U.S. Patent No. 6,481,468
` Case IPR2014-00055
` U.S. Patent No. 6,537,188
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF SUDHIR K. SASTRY
` Volume 3
` Alexandria, Virginia
` June 27, 2014
`
`Reported by: Mary Ann Payonk / Job No. 80915
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` GEA PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` STEUBEN FOODS, INC.
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
`
` Case IPR2014-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013
` Case IPR2014-00043
` U.S. Patent No. 6,475,435
` Case IPR2014-00051
` U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591
` Case IPR2014-00054
` U.S. Patent No. 6,481,468
` Case IPR2014-00055
` U.S. Patent No. 6,537,188
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF SUDHIR K. SASTRY
` Volume 3
` Alexandria, Virginia
` June 27, 2014
`
`Reported by: Mary Ann Payonk / Job No. 80915
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 1
`
`
`
`Page 440
`
` June 27, 2014
` 9:11 a.m.
`
` Deposition of SUDHIR K. SASTRY, Volume
`3, held at the offices of Oblon Spivak, 1940
`Duke Street Underpass, Alexandria, Virginia, pursuant to
`Notice before Mary Ann Payonk, Nationally
`Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public
`of the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of
`Virginia, States of Maryland and New York.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 2
`
`
`
`Page 441
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` BENJAMIN KIERSZ, ESQUIRE
` WILLIAM ATKINS, ESQUIRE
` MICHAEL HEINS, ESQUIRE
` PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
` 1650 Tysons Boulevard
` McLean, VA 22102
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` GREG GARDELLA, ESQUIRE
` KEVIN LAURENCE, ESQUIRE
` OBLON SPIVAK McCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street Underpass
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Cook Alciati, Esquire
` Corporate Counsel, Steuben
` Charles M. Avigliano, Esquire
` Corporate Counsel, Steuben
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 3
`
`
`
`Page 442
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
` start of the tape labeled number 1 of
` the continuation of the videotaped
` deposition of Sudhir Sastry in the
` matter GEA Process Engineering versus
` Steuben Foods. The date is June 27,
` 2014. The time is approximately
` 9:12 a.m. We're on the record.
`SUDHIR K. SASTRY,
` recalled as a witness, having been duly
` sworn, was, examined and testified
` further as follows:
` EXAMINATION (Cont'd.)
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. Dr. Sastry, could I have you turn to
`your declaration in IPR2014-00054?
` A. Okay. Just a moment. Yes.
` Q. And specifically, page 30. So this
`is Exhibit 2024 in IPR2014-00054.
` A. 30?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. If the annotations that are added to
`the drawing in the top of page 30 were
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 4
`
`
`
`Page 443
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`accurate, would ZFL's actuator be surrounded
`with the sterile tunnel?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, form.
` A. Okay. This -- I'm not able to
`answer. I'm not able to tell.
` Q. Well, let's assume for this
`hypothetical that arrow that points to what is
`asserted to be the actuator is actually
`correct. Are you able to determine whether
`that actuator is or is not surrounded by the
`sterile tunnel that's identified in that
`drawing?
` A. I'm not able to ascertain that.
` Q. So even looking at the drawing and
`assuming that the drawing is correct, you're
`not able to determine whether that actuator is
`surrounded by the sterile tunnel that's
`illustrated?
` A. I'm not able to say.
` Q. I'm now going to hand you a copy of
`Exhibit 1001 from IPR2014-00054.
` I'll ask you if you recognize that
`document.
` A. Yes, I do.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 5
`
`
`
`Page 444
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` Q. Is it okay if I refer to that as the
`'468 patent?
` A. Yes, I do. Fine with me, yes.
` Q. Can you turn to Claim 1 of the '468
`patent, please.
` A. Okay.
` Q. The last clause in Claim 1 says that
`"the sealed actuator is surrounded with the
`sterile region." Do you understand that clause
`in Claim 1?
` A. Okay. Let me just read this here.
` Yes.
` Q. Based on your understanding of that
`clause in Claim 1, does an actuator have to be
`inside the sterile region to be surrounded with
`the sterile region?
` A. Please repeat that question.
` (The reporter read from the record as
` follows: Based on your understanding of
` that clause in Claim 1, does an actuator
` have to be inside the sterile region to be
` surrounded with the sterile region?)
` A. The assumption I'm going on here is
`reference to "the sterile region," which one
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 6
`
`
`
`Page 445
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`would presume that "the sterile region" is the
`same sterile region as referred to in the
`previous clause. When you say "surrounding a
`region with a sterile region," and thereafter
`the reference to "the sterile region" is the --
`I'm assuming means the previously stated
`sterile region.
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. Can you tell me?
` A. My inclination in seeing "the sterile
`region" is if another sterile region is not
`specifically identified therein, I would tend
`to associate "the sterile region" with the
`previous "a sterile region." And I would
`assume the sealed actuator is surrounded -- is
`within that sterile zone in order to be -- if
`you could repeat the question, I will phrase it
`appropriately.
` Q. Let me ask a different question. So
`is it your testimony that "to be surrounded
`with the sterile region" as you understand that
`phrase to be used in Claim 1 of the '468
`patent, that something has to be inside the
`sterile region?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 7
`
`
`
`Page 446
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` A. That's -- yes.
` Q. Do you have that same opinion with
`respect to each claim in the '468 patent that
`uses the phrase "surrounded with the sterile
`region"?
` A. Let me maybe go through the others.
` Yes, it's my understanding on the
`other claims that it is surrounded by the
`sterile region.
` Q. All right. So each time the word
`"surrounded with" is used in the claims of the
`'468 patent, you understand that to mean
`inside?
` A. Inside, yes.
` Q. Can you now turn back to your
`declaration, please? And specifically,
`paragraph 53 of your declaration in
`IPR2014-00054. Again, this is Exhibit 2024.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And turn to paragraph 53, please.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. The first sentence in paragraph 53
`states, "Moreover, replacing the valve in ZFL
`with the valve in Takai would not change the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 8
`
`
`
`Page 447
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`fact that the actuator is not surrounded with
`the sterile tunnel."
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that sentence currently your
`opinion?
` A. In light of our discussion just a
`little while ago, I would say that I would not
`be able to answer definitively to that.
` Q. So that sentence is no longer your
`opinion?
` A. No longer.
` Q. Was it your opinion when you signed
`this declaration?
` A. I was under that impression, yes.
` Q. And you've changed that impression
`now?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's go to the second sentence in
`paragraph 53, which states, "For the sterile
`tunnel to surround the actuator, the sterile
`tunnel in ZFL would need to be expanded
`upward." Does the second sentence in paragraph
`53 of your declaration accurately recite your
`opinion?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 9
`
`
`
`Page 448
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` A. Not anymore.
` Q. Let's go to the fifth and sixth
`sentences, which are the last two complete
`sentences in paragraph 53. They read together,
`quote, "In this specific instance, the sterile
`tunnel would not only need to be expanded but
`would also" need -- "but would also include
`more components in the sterile zone as a result
`of such expansion. For example, the expansion
`of the sterile tunnel would now include the
`actuator."
` Are those two sentences currently
`your opinion?
` A. No longer.
` Q. Can you now turn to paragraph 54 in
`your declaration.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And look at the last sentence in
`paragraph 54, which states, quote, "Given the
`lack of guidance and extensive experimentation
`required to expand the aseptic zone of ZFL to
`include the valve of Takai, a POSITA would not
`have considered making such a combination,"
`close quote. Is that sentence currently your
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 10
`
`
`
`Page 449
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`opinion?
` A. No, no longer.
` Q. Can I now have you turn to paragraph
`55.
` A. Yes.
` Q. In the last full sentence on page 34
`you state, "The food contact surfaces including
`fill pipes and valves are also sterilized,
`oftentimes using culinary grade steam."
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Was the use of steam to sterilize
`fill pipes and valves of an aseptic packaging
`system known to a POSITA before February 2 of
`1999?
` A. They were known.
` Q. When you use the term "valves" in
`paragraph 55, does that include the filling
`valve that controls the flow of aseptic product
`into a container?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection to form.
` A. Please repeat the question.
` (The reporter read from the record as
` follows: When you use the term "valves"
` in paragraph 55, does that include the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 11
`
`
`
`Page 450
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` filling valve that controls the flow of
` aseptic product into a container?)
` A. I would say so, yes.
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. Does the use of steam to sterilize
`fill pipes and filler valves heat the pipes and
`valves?
` A. Yes, they do.
` Q. Does steam-based sterilization -- and
`is this sometimes referred to in the industry
`as sterilize in place?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Or SIP?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do steam-based SIP procedures raise
`concerns about thermophilic spoilage in the
`prior art?
` A. Steam-based SIP processes generally
`do not raise that concern for the reason that
`they are a presterilization step, and very
`quickly the pipe components revert back to
`normal temperatures. The flow of the product
`that often follows such sterilize-in-place
`operations includes a quantity of product that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 12
`
`
`
`Page 451
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`flows immediately behind or immediately chases
`behind the sterilizing fluid, which oftentimes
`is a dilute version which is discarded, so
`there's a little time allowed before the actual
`filling takes place, during which time the
`piping and other relevant components come back
`to a temperature that is more closely
`associated with sterile handling and storage.
` Q. Do you agree that before February 2
`of 1999, POSITAs were aware of ways to cool
`down product pipes and product filling valves
`between sterilize-in-place procedures and their
`use to control the flow of product so as to
`avoid thermophilic spoilage?
` A. This is true, yes.
` Q. Can you please turn to paragraph 90
`in your declaration, Exhibit 2024 in
`IPR2014-00054?
` A. Paragraph 90?
` Q. 90, please.
` A. Yes, uh-huh.
` Q. At about seven lines into paragraph
`90 do you see the sentence that states, "In the
`preferred embodiment, an aqueous solution of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 13
`
`
`
`Page 452
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`35 percent hydrogen peroxide is used"?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Is it your opinion that the '468
`patent actually teaches the use of a 35 percent
`hydrogen peroxide concentration?
` A. May I look at the '468?
` Q. Please. And the cite after your
`sentence cites to the '468 patent at column 6,
`lines 4 through 9?
` A. Yeah, I think it -- it's back to the
`question of less than about 35 percent, which
`could include 35 percent.
` Q. So it's your opinion that a POSITA
`reading the '468 patent at lines 5 through 9
`would believe that the -- that the "less than
`about 35 percent" means 35 percent?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, asked and
` answered.
` A. It could be read that -- it could be
`read that way, yes.
` Q. Can you now please turn to paragraph
`93 of the same declaration, Exhibit 2024 in
`IPR2014-00054?
` A. Uh-huh.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 14
`
`
`
`Page 453
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` Q. Does the figure in paragraph 93
`accurately depict the machine disclosed in the
`'468 patent?
` A. It's a representation. It's not a
`accurate depiction in a literal sense.
` Q. Where did this drawing come from?
` A. This was part of the drafts that were
`circulated in the process of preparing the
`declaration.
` Q. Did you create this drawing?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Who gave you this drawing?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection. You can
` answer the question only to the extent
` that it does not relay the substance of
` communications provided either from you
` to an attorney or vice versa.
` A. Well, this was provided in my
`communications in preparation with Cook
`Alciati.
` Q. Does the drawing in paragraph 93 show
`the aseptic packaging system as having six
`lanes?
` A. Again, depending on the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 15
`
`
`
`Page 454
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`interpretation of "lane" as we have previously
`discussed, it is -- it could be a six-lane
`device or a one-lane device depending on one's
`interpretation.
` Q. As a POSITA would understand the '468
`patent, which interpretation is correct?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, asked and
` answered.
` A. Yeah, in this instance, the
`correctness depends on the POSITA's view of the
`unit in question. If the POSITA's view of the
`unit is a bottle, they would consider it six
`lanes. If the POSITA's unit of reference is a
`six-lane unit, then it is a one-lane.
` Q. Do you recall that yesterday or the
`day before, we discussed that same drawing and
`six lanes and one lane in connection with one
`of the other Taggart patents?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Would your testimony you gave
`previously with respect to one of the other
`Taggart patents apply equally to the definition
`of "lane" and "line" and how many lanes are
`disclosed in the '468 patent?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 16
`
`
`
`Page 455
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` A. Yeah, I would go by that same
`definition, yes.
` Q. Would that same discussion apply to
`the other Taggart patents as well?
` A. Yes, I would go with that.
` Q. So Cook Alciati provided this drawing
`to you in paragraph 93?
` A. I received a draft from him.
` Q. That included this drawing? Do you
`know who drew this drawing?
` A. I do not.
` Q. Did the draft that Cook Alciati
`provided you with include this drawing?
` MR. GARDELLA: Instruct you not to
` answer that on the basis of
` attorney-client privilege.
` Q. Do you rely on this drawing in your
`declaration or in your testimony in paragraph
`93?
` A. In fact, I would suggest that
`probably that diagram is unnecessary.
` Q. Why did you include it?
` A. I think we were all busy in the
`process of preparing the declaration and things
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 17
`
`
`
`Page 456
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`got missed.
` Q. Did you think that this drawing was
`useful when you signed this declaration?
` A. It was there among many, a great many
`things, and my attention was focused on a
`number of different things, and things may have
`slipped through the cracks.
` Q. But you saw this drawing when you
`signed the declaration; correct?
` A. I had seen it, yes.
` Q. Why did you decide to sign a
`declaration that included this drawing?
` A. Because I did not think at the time
`that it was very -- specifically of major
`importance, but it was there to illustrate a
`concept more than anything of substantial
`detail.
` Q. All right. Can we now switch to a
`different one of the Taggart patents, the '435
`patent? I believe you have a copy of it.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is it your opinion that the claims of
`the '435 patent are limited to low-acid
`machines and methods?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 18
`
`
`
`Page 457
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, asked and
` answered.
` A. Yes, I believe it is low-acid.
` Q. The claims are limited to low-acid
`products?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What term -- let's start with
`Claim 1. What term in Claim 1 limits claim
`to -- Claim 1 to a low-acid product?
` A. There's nothing specifically stated
`herein which would suggest that the food or
`product that is to be filled within the
`container is low-acid.
` Q. And right now you're referring to
`Claim 1?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me ask you the same question with
`respect to Claim 4. Is there any term in Claim
`4 that would limit Claim 4 to a low-acid
`product or a low-acid machine?
` A. No, there is not.
` Q. What about in Claim 17?
` A. Nothing specific there.
` Q. What about Claim 33?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 19
`
`
`
`Page 458
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` A. Nothing specific in that one.
` Q. And finally, what about Claim 37?
` A. Nothing in --
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection,
` foundation.
` Q. Is there any term in any of the
`claims in the '435 patent that would limit any
`of the claims to a low-acid product or a
`low-acid machine?
` A. Not within the claims, no.
` Q. Can I have you turn back to Claim 1
`of the '435 patent?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. The last line of Claim 1 recites a
`5-to-1 ratio. Is there any significance to the
`5-to-1 ratio recited in Claim 1?
` A. Yes, I believe there is a
`significance to that ratio.
` Q. What is that significance?
` A. The significance arises from the
`operating conditions within the different zones
`which have specific sterilant introduction
`rates, specific air flow rates, and specific
`outflow rates, all of which combine to create
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 20
`
`
`
`Page 459
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`ratios in that -- within that range, yes.
` Q. Would a ratio as low as 5-to-1
`provide enough sterilant to sterilize bottles
`while still ensuring that residual sterilant in
`the filled bottles does not exceed FDA limits?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, form,
` foundation.
` A. Please repeat the question.
` (The reporter read from the record as
` follows: Would a ratio as low as 5-to-1
` provide enough sterilant to sterilize
` bottles while still ensuring that residual
` sterilant in the filled bottles does not
` exceed FDA limits?)
` A. Okay. The ratios in themselves, they
`are several -- four zones that are identified,
`the fourth, first, second and third. And the
`ratios of those are -- a 5-to-1 is between
`particular adjacent zones. And a 5-to-1 may
`well be -- the 5-to-1 between, say, the second
`sterilization zone and the first does not speak
`specifically -- it has a indirect relationship
`because you got a fourth sterilization zone
`where you have a sterilant that's being
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 21
`
`
`
`Page 460
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`introduced, and a first sterilization zone
`where you're removing said sterilant. And so
`there's a relationship between each of those.
`And so the 5-to-1 is -- refers to specific
`ratios between two adjacent zones.
` And yes, if you have two separate
`adjacent zones that are at least 5-to-1 or
`greater, you do -- you are able to achieve
`those objectives.
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. Can I have you jump again now to a
`different patent, the '188 patent?
` A. Certainly.
` Q. And in particular, Claim 40, which is
`on the last page of the '188 patent.
` A. Let me check that to see if I have it
`here. Yes, okay. Which claim?
` Q. Claim 40.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Please look at the fourth clause down
`in Claim 40. This clause states, "Filling the
`aseptically disinfected plurality of bottles at
`a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute."
` Is there an upper limit to that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 22
`
`
`
`Page 461
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`phrase "greater than 100 bottles per minute" as
`that phrase is used in Claim 40 of the '188
`patent?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection,
` relevance, scope, form.
` A. Well, it does not state it right
`here.
` Q. Would a POSITA looking at this clause
`in Claim 40 believe that there is an upper
`limit to that limitation?
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objections.
` A. A POSITA might consider there's an
`upper practical limit.
` Q. But there's a practical limit to what
`can be done or there's a practical limit to
`what's claimed?
` A. I think what could be done.
` Q. What's the upper limit of what can be
`done?
` A. Well, I think --
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objection, or
` objections. Excuse me.
` A. The flow rate or the rate of movement
`of bottles as we've previously discussed is --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 23
`
`
`
`Page 462
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`depends on the slowest rate-limiting step in
`the indexing operation, and that gives you a
`certain, you know, a certain maximum flow rate
`going through that -- the system.
` Q. All right. So it's impossible to
`build a system that goes beyond a certain
`filling speed?
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objections.
` A. I don't know that it is impossible to
`build a device. It is in principle always
`possible for devices to go above certain
`filling speeds, depending on the choice of
`design parameters.
` Q. Would a POSITA before February 2 of
`1999 have been able to increase the speed at
`will of a filling machine?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Why not?
` A. Well, to begin with, there is also,
`of course, the lack of teaching in the prior
`art. And then there are -- of course, there
`are physical limits to actual movement in how
`one might handle a bottle. So those are what
`might dictate an upper limit.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 24
`
`
`
`Page 463
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` Q. Do any of the Taggart patents
`disclose a way to overcome those -- the
`limitations that you were referring to in the
`prior art, ability to increase filling speed?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, scope,
` relevance, form.
` A. Okay. I think that if you could
`repeat the question, I'd appreciate it.
` (The reporter read from the record as
` follows: Do any of the Taggart patents
` disclose a way to overcome the limitations
` that you were referring to in the prior
` art, ability to increase filling speed?)
` THE WITNESS: One more time. I'd
` appreciate it.
` (The reporter read from the record
` as follows: Do any of the Taggart
` patents disclose a way to overcome those
` -- the limitations that you were
` referring to in the prior art, ability
` to increase filling speed?)
` A. The -- first of all, the prior art
`has very little in it. So possibly I, you
`know, use that as a starting point.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 25
`
`
`
`Page 464
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` And I would be of the opinion that
`the Taggart patents for the first time show the
`ability to sterilize bottles at a particular
`rate and also be able to achieve the residual
`requirement and do so at a speed that was not
`known in the prior art.
` And so to that extent, the Taggart
`patents have enabled that to happen. And so
`that's the substance. So if it's -- I think
`that's sort of a summary of what was
`accomplished by the Taggart patent in relation
`to the prior art.
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. Now, with respect to the Taggart
`patents, you're referring now to the ability to
`sterilize bottles faster; correct?
` A. The ability to sterilize bottles
`faster, together with the ability to remove
`sterilant and be able to meet a residual
`requirement while at the same time being able,
`not damaging the bottles, especially
`heat-sensitive bottles.
` Q. Let me ask you, separately from the
`sterilization of the bottles, does the Taggart
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 26
`
`
`
`Page 465
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`patent -- do any of the Taggart patents
`disclose particular ways to achieve higher
`bottle filling speeds than were attainable in
`the prior art?
` A. Yeah, bottle filling speeds, the
`Taggart patent does disclose those, and I
`believe that comes in the patent that we
`discussed a few minutes ago.
` I think it was the '468 patent, where
`you have actuators that are completely located
`within sterile zones that have no need for
`resterilization of a component upon -- that
`might exit a sterile zone and come back therein
`and thereby eliminating a need to sterilize,
`which would have required a specific residence
`time. And so the valves themselves would be
`very fast acting.
` Q. So it's your opinion that the
`Taggart -- the '468 patent enabled a faster
`filling speed than was known in the prior art
`because the Taggart -- the '468 patent
`disclosed a filling valve that was positioned
`within the sterile zone?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, scope,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 27
`
`
`
`Page 466
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` relevance, form.
` A. I believe the designs that are
`disclosed in that patent are indeed enabling of
`higher filling speeds than were previously
`obtainable.
` Q. And the reason for that is because
`the Taggart patents disclose a filling valve
`that is disposed inside the sterile zone?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any other reason that the
`Taggart patents enable a higher filling speed
`than was achievable in the prior art?
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objections.
` A. Well, the sterilization also has to
`happen at faster speed and therefore, that,
`combined with the filling speed, gives you --
`has -- gives you two sort of dimensions of
`enablement.
` Q. Okay. So sterilization speed is what
`enables faster filling speed?
` A. They're both independent of one
`another, but they're both faster than the prior
`art.
` Q. Is there anything else disclosed in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 28
`
`
`
`Page 467
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`any of the Taggart patents that enable a faster
`filling speed than was possible in the prior
`art?
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objections.
` A. Not specifically.
` Q. Was it known in the prior art to
`position a filling valve inside the aseptic
`zone of the product filler in an aseptic
`packaging system?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection to form.
` A. It is possible that such a thing was
`available.
` Q. Do you know whether it was or was
`not?
` A. I do not.
` Q. Can I have you turn in your
`declaration in IPR2014-00054? That's your
`declaration with respect to the '468 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. This is Exhibit 2024?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And specifically to paragraph 50.
`The second sentence in paragraph 50 states,
`"The Takai valve, while surrounded by an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 29
`
`
`
`Page 468
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
`aseptic zone B."
` Is it your understanding that Takai's
`valve was, in fact, surrounded by an aseptic
`zone?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection to form.
` A. I don't recall, but I would need to
`refer to the Takai patent.
` Q. Is that what you're stating here in
`your declaration in paragraph 50?
` A. Uh-huh, that was my understanding,
`yes, in that -- at the time.
` Q. Is that no longer your understanding?
` A. No, I need to refer to the Takai
`patent in order to give you my --
` Q. By all means.
` A. -- opinion. I'm just trying to
`figure out where that is. I know I had it
`yesterday. There it is.
` Q. You know what? If it's okay, I'd
`actually just prefer to move on.
` A. That's fine.
` Q. Could we turn back to the '188
`patent, and again at Claim 40.
` A. Uh-huh.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 30
`
`
`
`Page 469
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` S. Sastry
` Q. Is there an upper limit to the
`filling speed that is enabled by any of the
`Taggart patents?
` MR. GARDELLA: Objection, scope,
` form, foundation, relevance. Also,
` objection, asked and answered.
` A. Could you repeat the question?
` (The reporter read from the record as
` follows: Is there an upper limit to the
` filling speed that is enabled by any of
` the Taggart patents?)
` A. Referring to the filling speed, I'm
`not able to say precisely that there is an
`upper limit on the filling speed.
`BY MR. KIERSZ:
` Q. So a POSITA looking at the Taggart
`patents could create a machine with infinite
`filling speed, infinite bottles per minute?
` MR. GARDELLA: Same objections.
` Q. That operates at an infinite bottle
`per minute filling speed?
` A. This is of course subject to the laws
`of physics at some point and would therefore --
`would reach an upper limit of flow rate that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00055
`Steuben Exhibit 2070, pg. 31
`
`
`
`Page 470
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
