`’896 PATENT
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,806,896
`
`INVENTOR: PETER M. BONUTTI
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: NOV. 25, 2003
`
` ISSUED: OCT. 5, 2010
`
`
`
`TITLE: KNEE ARTHROPLASTY
`METHOD
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAY D. MABREY, MD, MBA REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,806,896
`
`I, Jay D. Mabrey, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`1. My name is Jay D. Mabrey.
`
`2.
`
`I received a B.A. in Biochemistry from Cornell University in 1977
`
`and an M.D. from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1981. I also received an
`
`M.B.A. from Texas Woman’s University in 2012.
`
`3.
`
`I served as an Intern in General Surgery in 1981, as a Resident in
`
`General Surgery in 1982, as a Resident in Orthopaedics from 1983 to 1986, and as
`
`WMT 1002-1
`
`
`
`Chief Resident in Orthopaedics in 1987, all at Duke University Medical Center in
`
`Durham, North Carolina. I additionally completed a Fellowship in Biomechanics
`
`and Total Joints at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, New York, in
`
`1991.
`
`4.
`
`I received certifications from the National Board of Medical
`
`Examiners in 1982 and from the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery in 1989.
`
`I was recertified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (Oral) in 1998
`
`and by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (Computer) in 2010. I have
`
`held a permanent license to practice medicine in Texas since 1992.
`
`5. My areas of expertise include orthopedic surgery, including knee and
`
`hip replacement, medical device design, and computer assisted surgery. As
`
`described in my curriculum vitae (CV), attached as Appendix A, I have extensive
`
`experience related to performing knee replacement surgeries, as well as designing
`
`medical devices for knee replacement surgery.
`
`6.
`
`I have held several academic appointments, including serving as the
`
`Chief of the Department of Orthopaedics Baylor University Medical Center in
`
`Dallas, Texas since 2004 and serving as a Professor of Surgery at Texas A&M
`
`Health Science Center College of Medicine in Bryan, Texas since 2012. A
`
`WMT 1002-2
`
`
`
`complete list of my academic appointments is included in my CV, attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive industry experience consulting on the design of
`
`medical devices, including work for Exactech on computer assisted navigation
`
`systems, for DePuy on Surgical Robotics, and for Howmedica and Smith &
`
`Nephew on Adult Reconstruction. I have also worked as a surgeon as part of my
`
`service in the Army Reserve. A complete list of my civilian and military
`
`experience is included in my CV, attached as Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored or co-authored numerous peer-reviewed academic
`
`publications in the field of orthopedic surgery, including Mabrey JD, Toohey JS,
`
`Armstrong DA, Lavery L, Wammack LA: “Clinical pathway management of total
`
`knee arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol 345: pp 125-
`
`133, December, 1997 and Covall DJ, Stulberg BN, Mabrey JD, Burstein AH,
`
`Angibaud LD, Smith K, Zadzilka JD: “Introducing a New Technique for
`
`Improving Predictability in Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty: The
`
`Posterior Cruciate Referencing Technique.” Techniques in Knee Surgery.
`
`8(4):271-275, December 2009. A complete list of my publications is included in
`
`my CV, attached as Appendix A.
`
`WMT 1002-3
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I am a named co-inventor on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,414,653 and
`
`8,506,640, both related to a knee prosthesis system.
`
`10.
`
`I have served as a panelist on the FDA Orthopaedic Devices Panel
`
`from 2004 to 2006 and then served as the Panel’s Chairman from 2006 through
`
`2010.
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,806,896 (the “’896 patent” (Ex. 1001)). I have been informed that the ’896
`
`patent was filed Nov. 25, 2003, and was a continuation of U.S. patent application
`
`Ser. No. 10/191,751 filed Jul. 8, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,104,996 and a
`
`continuation-in-part of the following applications: U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`09/976,396 filed Oct. 11, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,770,078; U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 09/941,185 filed Aug. 28, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,702,821;
`
`U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/566,070, filed May 5, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,575,982; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/737,380 filed Dec. 15, 2000 now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,503,267; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/569,020 filed May 11,
`
`2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,423,063; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/483,676
`
`filed Jan. 14, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,468,289; U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`09/798,870 filed Mar. 1, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,503,277; U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 09/526,949 filed on Mar. 16, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`WMT 1002-4
`
`
`
`6,620,181; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/789,621 filed Feb. 21, 2001 now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,635,073. See ’896 patent, at cover page (Ex. 1001). I understand
`
`that the earliest effective filing date of Claims 1 and 13 of the ’896 patent is
`
`November 25, 2003. I further understand that even if Applicant asserts the
`
`effective filing date is August 28, 2001, the filing date of U.S. Pat. No. 6,702,821,
`
`challenged in a separate petition, the references are still prior art.
`
`12.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references:
`
`•
`
`Scott L. Delp, et al., “Computer Assisted Knee Replacement,”
`
`Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 354, pp. 49-56
`
`(1998) (“Delp Article” (Ex. 1003)), which has a publication date of
`
`1998, and is prior art to the ’896 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,871,018 (“Delp ’018” (Ex. 1004)), which has a
`
`filing date of June 6, 1997, and an issue date of February 16, 1999,
`
`and is prior art to the ’896 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`S. David Stulberg, et al., “Computer-Assisted Total Knee
`
`Replacement Arthroplasty,” 10(1) Operative Techniques in
`
`Orthopaedics, pp. 25-39 (Jan. 2000) (“Stulberg” (Ex. 1005)), which
`
`has a publication date of Jan. 2000, and is prior art to the ’896 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`WMT 1002-5
`
`
`
`•
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 93/25157
`
`(“Radermacher ’157” (Ex. 1007)), which has an international filing
`
`date of June 17, 1993, and an international publication date of
`
`December 23, 1993, and is prior art to the ’896 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`•
`
`Klaus Radermacher, et al., “Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery
`
`With Image Based Individual Templates,” 354 Clinical Orthopaedics
`
`and Related Research, pp. 28-38 (1998) (“Radermacher Article” (Ex.
`
`1006)), which has a publication date of 1998, and is prior art to the
`
`’896 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`Roderick H. Turner, Richard Matzan, and Yousif I. Hamati,
`
`“Geometric and Anametric Total Knee Replacement,” in Total Knee
`
`Replacement (A.A. Savastano, M.D. ed. 1980) (“Turner” (Ex. 1008)),
`
`which has a publication date of 1980, and is prior art to the ’896
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`Striker Howmedica Osteonics, “Scorpio Single Axis Total Knee
`
`System: Passport A.R. Surgical Technique” (“Scorpio” (Ex. 1009)),
`
`which has a publication date of May 2000, and is prior art to the ’896
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`WMT 1002-6
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`14.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’896 patent, and have had no contact with the named inventor of the
`
`’896 patent.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the terms of the claim must
`
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Based on that information and
`
`understanding, I agree with and have applied the following broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim term below to my analysis contained in this declaration:
`
`16. The term “cutting guide” should mean a “guide that has a guide
`
`surface” and that the term “guide surface” should mean “a surface that guides a
`
`cutting instrument.” This definition is consistent with the ’896 patent’s
`
`specification. See, e.g., ’896 patent, col. 38, ll. 9-18 (Ex. 1001).1
`
`1 I understand that this claim construction is appropriate under the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction” standard applied at the U.S.P.T.O. and does not indicate
`
`what claim construction would be appropriate in a District Court proceeding.
`
`WMT 1002-7
`
`
`
`17. The term “customized cutting guide” should mean “a cutting guide
`
`modified for a specific patient.” This definition is consistent with the ’896 patent’s
`
`specification. See ’896 patent, col. 108, ll. 19-21 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`18. The challenged claims of the ’896 patent relate to methods for knee
`
`replacement surgery, also known as knee arthroplasty.
`
`19. Generally, there are two types of knee replacement surgeries: total
`
`knee and partial knee replacement. During either type of knee replacement, an
`
`orthopedic surgeon replaces either a portion of or all of a damaged knee with an
`
`artificial device (also known as a prosthesis or an implant). Although a total knee
`
`arthroplasty (“TKA”) is the most common procedure, some people can benefit
`
`from replacing only a portion of the knee, such as the medial femoral-tibial joint.
`
`This partial replacement is sometimes called a unicondylar knee arthroplasty
`
`(“UKA”).
`
`20. Knee replacement was not new when the ’896 patent was filed. Some
`
`elementary background in the anatomical terms of location, the knee anatomy, and
`
`the surgical procedure is helpful to understand fully the claim limitations in the
`
`challenged claim and to appreciate how the prior art renders the claim unpatentable.
`
`Anatomical Terms of Location
`
`WMT 1002-8
`
`
`
`21. The following standard anatomical terms are relevant to knee
`
`replacement:
`
`• Anterior – Front of the body
`
`• Posterior – Rear of the body
`
`• Medial – Toward the center of the body
`
`• Lateral – Left and right of the body
`
`• Proximal – End of an appendage closer to torso
`
`• Distal – End of an appendage further from torso
`
`Relevant Knee Anatomy
`
`22. At a simple conceptual level, the knee works like a modified hinge on
`
`a door. Bending of the knee is called “flexion” and straightening of the knee is
`
`called “extension.” The knee is more complex than a simple hinge and actually
`
`rotates around its central axis as it flexes and extends.
`
`23. The knee is a major weight-bearing joint that is held together by
`
`muscles, ligaments, and soft tissue. Cartilage inside the joint provides shock
`
`absorption, which is used to walk, run, lift, climb stairs, etc. The illustration below
`
`shows the components of the knee:
`
`WMT 1002-9
`
`
`
`Illustration of Components of Human Knee
`
`
`
`24. A human knee is comprised of four main components: bones,
`
`ligaments, cartilage, and tendons.
`
`25. Bones - A knee is made up of the thighbone (femur), the shinbone
`
`(tibia), the fibula, and the kneecap (patella). The thighbone and shinbone come
`
`together to form a hinge. The kneecap rests in front of this hinge to provide
`
`protection, but is not connected to the joint itself. Instead, the back of the kneecap
`
`(called the articulating surface) sits in a groove in the thighbone that allows the
`
`thighbone to rotate as the patella slides in this groove. When the knee bends or
`
`WMT 1002-10
`
`
`
`straightens, the patella slides through that groove. This groove is sometimes called
`
`the femoral groove, the patellar groove, or the trochlear groove. The end of the
`
`thigh bone has two rounded areas called condyles, which glide against the cartilage
`
`of the shin bone. Two major supporting ligaments of the knee are the medial and
`
`lateral collateral ligaments. They attach to the medial and lateral femoral
`
`epicondyles. The epicondyles serve as reference points for positioning total knee
`
`implants during surgery. The features are shown below:
`
`
`Illustration of Bent Knee with Patella Cut Away from Thighbone
`
`26. Ligaments - Ligaments hold the components of the knee together and
`
`keep them stable.
`
`27. Cartilage – Cartilage act as shock absorbers and low friction surfaces
`
`so that the bones can easily rotate.
`
`28. Tendons - Tendons connect muscle to the knee bones.
`
`WMT 1002-11
`
`
`
`Knee Replacement Surgery
`
`29. When a knee has been damaged by a disease like osteoarthritis, knee
`
`replacement surgery can replace the damaged portions with artificial components.
`
`Before the surgeon can begin the procedure, however, the parts of the knee to be
`
`replaced must be exposed. A surgeon will expose the operative areas by first
`
`making an incision through the patient’s skin. The surgeon will then typically
`
`access the operative area by moving the patella out of the trochlear groove to
`
`expose the condyles and the intercondyle notch. The surgeon offsets the patella to
`
`the side of the knee by either pushing it over (displacing it laterally) without
`
`flipping it over, or by lifting the patella off of the knee and rotating it to the side
`
`such that the articulating surface is no longer facing the femur (referred to as
`
`everting). Once the surgeon offsets the patella, unless she is resurfacing the patella
`
`(described below), the surgeon will maintain the patella in the offset position, so
`
`that she has access to the bones of the knee during the surgery.
`
`30. Once the knee is exposed, the surgeon will conduct the replacement
`
`through four phases: preparing the bone; positioning the implant; resurfacing the
`
`patella; and inserting a spacer.
`
`31. Preparing the Bone – The surgeon removes the damaged cartilage
`
`surfaces at the ends of the femur and tibia and a small amount of underlying bone.
`
`WMT 1002-12
`
`
`
`The figures below show an example of the cuts a surgeon would typically make to
`
`a femur during surgery and the results of those cuts.
`
`
`
`
`
`Illustrations of Knee Resection Cuts (Fig. 16) and Resected Knee (Fig. 17)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,502,483, filed March 9, 1983 (“Lacey ’483”), Figs. 16 & 17 (Ex.
`
`1013)).
`
`32. To help ensure that cuts are made accurately, surgeons typically use
`
`cutting guides with a guide surface that guides the saw used to cut (or “resect”) the
`
`bone. Cutting guides, also known as resection guides or guide members, come in
`
`many different shapes and sizes. A few illustrative examples of prior art cutting
`
`guides are shown below:
`
`WMT 1002-13
`
`
`
`
`
`Illustrative Examples of Prior Art Cutting Guides
`
`
`
`
`
`Smith & Nephew Genesis Uni, p. 16; Figs. 29 (Ex. 1018) (top left); Lackey ’803,
`
`Fig. 11 (Ex. 1019) (assigned to Smith & Nephew Richards) (top center); Richards,
`
`p. 3 (Ex. 1020) (top right); Turner, Fig. 8; p. 181 (Ex. 1008) (bottom left);
`
`Radermacher ’157, Fig. 13a (Ex. 1007) (bottom center); Keblish, Fig. 10 (Ex. 1021)
`
`(bottom right).
`
`33. As shown above, in some cutting guides, such as the Smith & Nephew
`
`Genesis Uni, the guide surface is a slot. In other cutting guides, such as the Turner
`
`example, the cutting surface is provided without a slot. Other cutting guides, such
`
`as the Radermacher example, contain open guide surfaces (e.g., 20b) and a slot
`
`(e.g., 20c). Whether a slot is used is a matter of surgeon preference. Some
`
`surgeons prefer cutting guides with slots, which provide greater guidance of the
`
`saw blade, whereas other surgeons prefer open cutting surfaces, which are easier to
`
`WMT 1002-14
`
`
`
`clean, generate less metallic debris, and make it easier for the surgeon to adjust the
`
`cut. The design choice between slots and open cutting guides was within the level
`
`of ordinary skill to design and modify when the ’896 patent was filed. The
`
`placement and extent of the cutting surface is also within the level of ordinary skill.
`
`Each had known attributes and predictable results.
`
`34.
`
`Initially, surgeons positioned cutting guides by hand. Beginning in
`
`the 1960’s and 1970’s, surgeons started using mechanical alignment guides to
`
`assure that cutting guides were properly aligned with the leg when placed on the
`
`bone. Two common types of alignment guides are intramedullary alignment rods,
`
`which are inserted into the medullary canal (bone marrow cavity) of the bone and
`
`extramedullary alignment rods, which are placed externally along the medullary
`
`canal of the bone.
`
`
`Illustrations of an Intramedullary Alignment Device (Left) and an
`Extramedullary Alignment System (Right)
`
`WMT 1002-15
`
`
`
`Stulberg, p. 32, Figs. 10-11 (Ex.1005).
`
`35. More recently, during the 1990’s, surgeons began using computer
`
`assisted techniques to guide the placement of cutting blocks and create customized
`
`cutting guides adapted to fit a specific patient’s bone.
`
`36. Positioning the Metal Implants – The surgeon replaces the removed
`
`cartilage and bone with metal components that recreate the surface of the joint.
`
`Before implanting a metal implant, the surgeon will typically test the fit of the
`
`implant with a trial prosthesis that is the same size as the metal implant, but is not
`
`implanted. After confirming the fit with the trial prostheses, the metal implants
`
`may be cemented or “press-fit” into the bone.
`
`37. Resurfacing the Patella – In some circumstances, the surgeon cuts and
`
`resurfaces the undersurface of the patella (kneecap) with a plastic button.
`
`38.
`
`Inserting a Spacer – The surgeon inserts a medical-grade plastic
`
`spacer between the metal components to create a smooth gliding surface.
`
`39. Once the surgeon has completed these four phases of the knee
`
`replacement surgery, she will place the various components of the now-updated
`
`knee into their original positions. This includes moving the patella back into the
`
`replaced trochlear groove. She will then perform various tests to assure that the
`
`knee has the proper functionality and mobility, and close the incision.
`
`WMT 1002-16
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Assisted Knee Surgery
`
`40. Computer-assisted knee replacement was not new when the ’896
`
`patent was filed.2 One approach developed in the 1990’s uses preoperative
`
`scanning techniques (e.g., MRI, CT-scan, etc.) to visualize an individual patient’s
`
`bony knee anatomy. Other systems utilize bony landmarks and centers of rotation
`
`acquired at the time of surgery to establish proper axes of alignment. These
`
`techniques permit the surgeon to identify important landmarks that ensure that the
`
`implants are properly installed. In addition, those techniques that utilize scans can
`
`be used to create customized cutting blocks that interface precisely with the
`
`patient’s bony anatomy and ensure accurate placement of the implants. These
`
`were developed due to the failings of standard mechanical techniques:
`
`Mechanical alignment systems have fundamental limitations that limit
`their ultimate accuracy. The accuracy of preoperative planning is
`limited by the errors inherent to standard radiographs. With standard
`instrumentation, the correct location of crucial alignment
`landmarks . . . is limited during the performance of a TKR . . . .
`[M]echanical alignment and sizing devices presume a standardized
`
`2 The ’896 patent acknowledges image guided surgery systems were “known” and
`
`“commercially available.” E.g., ’896 patent, col. 42, ll. 30-39 (Ex. 1001).
`
`WMT 1002-17
`
`
`
`bone geometry that may not apply to a specific patient. Even the most
`elaborate mechanical instrumentation systems rely on visual
`inspection to confirm the accuracy of the limb and implant alignment.
`
`Stulberg, p. 25 (Ex.1005). Computer-based systems were designed to address
`
`these problems, Stulberg, p. 25 (Ex.1005), and were designed with standard
`
`instruments and implants in mind. Stulberg, p. 33 (Ex.1005). For example, the
`
`computer-assisted knee replacement technique discussed in 1999 in Stulberg “uses
`
`currently available mechanical total knee instruments” with the disclosed
`
`computer-assisted alignment techniques. Id., p. 33 (Ex. 1005).
`
`41. Beyond alignment, computer-assisted surgery was used for
`
`customizing cutting blocks. The Radermacher Article, published in 1998,
`
`describes development of individual templates based on a patient’s CT-scan that
`
`are “customized on the basis of. . . the bone structures.” Radermacher Article, p.
`
`29 (Ex. 1006). This system “facilitates exact, safe, and fast implementation of
`
`planned surgery on bone structures, [and] eliminates the need for continual
`
`radiographic monitoring.” Id.(Ex. 1006).
`
`The ’896 Patent
`
`WMT 1002-18
`
`
`
`42. The challenged claims of the ’896 patent merely recite conventional
`
`techniques and instrumentation for performing knee surgery. Challenged claims 1
`
`and 13 are reproduced below:
`
`1. A method of replacing at least a portion of a patient's knee,
`the method comprising the steps of:
`(a)3 making an incision in a knee portion of a leg of the patient;
`(b) determining a position of a cutting guide using references
`derived independently from an intramedullary device;
`(c) positioning a cutting guide using the determined position,
`passing the cutting guide through the incision and on a surface of a
`distal end portion of an unresected femur, the cutting guide secured to
`the bone free of an extramedullary or intramedullary alignment rod;
`(d) moving a cutting tool through the incision into engagement
`with a guide surface on the cutting guide; and
`(e) forming at least an initial cut on the femur by moving the
`cutting tool along the guide surface;
`(f) attaching a replacement portion of the knee to the cut
`surface, the replacement portion having a transverse dimension that is
`larger than a transverse dimension of the guide surface.
`
`
`3 The identifiers (a), (b), etc. have been added to the limitations to facilitate
`
`discussion of the claims.
`
`WMT 1002-19
`
`
`
`13. A method of replacing at least a portion of a joint in a
`patient, the method comprising the steps of:
`(a) obtaining a customized cutting guide fabricated for the
`patient based on preoperative information, the cutting guide
`positionable in a pre-determined position on a bone of the joint using
`references derived independently from an intramedullary device;
`(b) making an incision adjacent to the joint in the patient;
`(c) positioning the cutting guide in the pre-determined position
`by passing the cutting guide through the incision and on a surface of
`an end portion of an unresected bone of the joint;
`(d) moving a cutting tool through the incision into engagement
`with a guide surface on the positioned cutting guide;
`(e) cutting the unresected bone of the joint for the first time, by
`moving the cutting tool along the guide surface;
` (f) attaching a replacement portion of the knee to the cut
`surface, the replacement portion having a transverse dimension that is
`larger than a transverse dimension of the guide surface; and
`(g) disposing of the cutting guide, as it is no longer safely
`usable the bone for which it was custom fabricated having been cut
`and therefore changed.
`
`’896 patent, claims 1 and 13, Ex. 1001.
`
`43. As set forth in detail below, claims 1 and 13 do nothing more than
`
`describe and claim the conventional steps for performing a knee surgery using
`
`surgical techniques and instrumentation that was old and well-known as of the
`
`WMT 1002-20
`
`
`
`earliest possible priority date of the ’896 patent. See That is, prior to August 28,
`
`2001, surgeons knew of and had performed a knee replacement with reduced-size
`
`instrumentation and no intramedullary or extramedullary guidance (Claim 1) and
`
`with a custom cutting guide placed without intramedullary guidance (Claim 13).
`
`44. The background of the specification acknowledges that many of the
`
`claimed steps were known. See ’896 patent, col. 1, l. 52 - col. 2, l. 38; col. 10, l. 25
`
`- col. 11, l. 2 (Ex. 1001). The specification states that during a known total or
`
`partial knee replacement “an incision is made in a knee portion of the leg to obtain
`
`access to the knee joint” (making an incision, recited in claim 1, limitation (a), and
`
`claim 13, limitation (b)). ’896 patent, col. 1, ll. 52-55 (Ex. 1001). The
`
`specification further states that the incision is made “to enable instrumentation,
`
`such as a femoral alignment guide, femoral cutting guide, anterior resection guide,
`
`distal resection guide, posterior and chamfer resection guide to be positioned
`
`relative to a distal end portion of the femur” (passing instrumentation through an
`
`incision, recited in claim 1, limitations (c) and (d), and claim 13, limitations (c) and
`
`(d)). ’896 patent, col. 1, ll. 55-59 (Ex. 1001). The specification also states that
`
`“[c]uts are made on a femur and tibia” (cutting the bone, recited in claim 1,
`
`limitation (e), and claim 13, limitation (e)) and “implants [are] positioned in the
`
`knee portion of the patient’s leg” (attaching a replacement portion of the knee,
`
`WMT 1002-21
`
`
`
`recited in claim 1, limitation (f), and claim 13, limitation (f)). ’896 patent, col. 2, ll.
`
`28-29; col. 10, l. 62 (Ex. 1001).
`
`45. Of the 112 columns of material in the specification, only a few
`
`description paragraphs even arguably relate to the purportedly novel features of the
`
`claimed invention. For example, the specification states: “A cut on a bone in the
`
`patient may be completed using previously cut surfaces as a guide for the cutting
`
`tool.” ’896 patent, col. 3, ll. 28-30 (Ex. 1001). During prosecution, Applicant
`
`appears to have relied— without explanation— on this disclosure for the conclusion
`
`that: “the present invention provides a means for cutting bone, where the guide
`
`member is free of extramedullary or intramedullary members.” ’896 patent file
`
`history, April 30, 2007, Response, p. 13 (Ex. 1014).4
`
`46. The specification also describes “computer navigation systems”:
`
`It is contemplated that emitters, receivers, and/or reflectors of
`computer navigation systems could be pinned or otherwise attached
`onto the femur 126 and tibia 214 to provide cutting positions and to
`
`4 By contrast, the specification provides extensive description of “exemplary
`
`embodiment[s]” of the invention that disclose the opposite, namely, the use of
`
`intramedullary and extramedullary alignment devices. E.g., ’896 patent, col. 17, ll.
`
`15-19; col. 103, ll. 37-39; Fig. 16 (showing “intramedullary rod 132”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`WMT 1002-22
`
`
`
`facilitate ligament balancing through relatively small incisions. The
`computer navigation system may utilize three or four separate
`registers which have optical feedback to a central unit [and] may
`utilize electromagnetic or photo-optical feedback.
`
`’896 patent, col. 36, ll. 55-58 (Ex. 1001). The specification acknowledges that
`
`image-guided surgery systems were “known” and “commercially available.” ’896
`
`patent, col. 42, ll. 30-39 (Ex. 1001).
`
`47. The specification additionally describes “downsized instrumentation”:
`
`
`
`[T]he femoral alignment guide 134 and anterior resection guide
`138 have transverse dimensions, perpendicular to a longitudinal
`central axis of the femur 126, which are smaller than transverse
`dimensions of a femoral implant 290, tibial bearing insert 294, and a
`tibial tray 286 (FIG. 29) in a direction perpendicular to the
`longitudinal central axis of the femur 126 (FIG. 9).
`
`’896 patent, Figs. 9, 29; col. 17, ll. 53-59 (Ex. 1001). The specification
`
`acknowledges that the instrumentation in Figure 9 (as well as in Figures 10 through
`
`WMT 1002-23
`
`
`
`21), “with the exception of being down sized, is generally similar to known
`
`instrumentation which is commercially available . . . under the trademark ‘Scorpio’
`
`single access total knee system.” ’896 patent, col. 36, ll. 61-65 (Ex. 1001).
`
`48. The specification also notes that “customized instrumentation” is
`
`possible and discusses benefits associated with disposable instrumentation. ’896
`
`patent, col. 108, ll. 19-26 (Ex. 1001).
`
`The Prior Art That Renders The Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`
`49. The challenged claims recite features long known by persons of skill
`
`in the art in the field of knee arthroplasty. The purported invention is a
`
`combination of known features, each of which was well known to those skilled in
`
`the art before and at the time to which the ’896 patent claims priority. As
`
`discussed in the grounds presented below, the claimed methods were known, the
`
`claimed steps performed in expected ways, and any benefit that the steps achieve
`
`was expected. Based on the prior art cited herein, the claimed limitations of the
`
`alleged invention perform known functions with an expected result, and are
`
`therefore unpatentable.
`
`Delp Article
`
`50. The Delp Article describes computer-assisted surgical systems
`
`developed to overcome problems with mechanical alignment systems. Delp
`
`WMT 1002-24
`
`
`
`Article, pp. 49-56 (Ex. 1003). Computer-assisted systems can use “computer
`
`integrated instruments” that augment “mechanical instruments through the addition
`
`of measurement probes that can be used to locate joint centers, track surgical tools,
`
`and align prosthetic components.” Id., p. 50 (Ex. 1003). The Delp Article explains
`
`that “[c]omputer integrated instruments that combine standard cutting guides with
`
`highly accurate measurement equipment are a natural extension of current
`
`techniques and offer several potential advantages.” Delp Article, p. 55 (Ex. 1003).
`
`In particular, the Delp Article explains that a computer-integrated instrument
`
`system “eliminates the need for intramedullary and extramedullary alignment
`
`guides.” Delp Article, p. 55 (Ex. 1003). Computer-assisted systems can also use
`
`“image guided knee replacement,” where a three-dimensional preoperative plan
`
`guides component placement. Delp Article, p. 50 (Ex. 1003). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand from reading the Delp Article that a
`
`computer-assisted surgical system can use both computer-integrated instruments
`
`and image-guided knee replacement.
`
`Delp ’018
`
`51. Delp ’018 “relates generally to computer-assisted surgical systems,
`
`and in particular to a computer-assisted knee replacement system used to achieve
`
`accurate limb alignment with minimal surgical invasiveness.” Delp ’018, col. 1, ll.
`
`WMT 1002-25
`
`
`
`8-11 (Ex. 1004). Delp ’018 aims “to provide a method of performing knee
`
`arthroplasty that does not require the use of an intramedullary rod in the femur.”
`
`Delp ’018, col. 5, ll. 49-51 (Ex. 1004). It explains that the “invention overcomes
`
`alignment problems by determining optimal alignment preoperatively and using
`
`computer guidance to help the surgeon achieve this alignment.” Delp ’018, col. 22,
`
`ll. 42-44 (Ex. 1004). Delp ’018 further explains that the “computer replaces large,
`
`complicated mechanical alignment systems, allowing smaller jigs to be used, and
`
`thus a smaller incision to be made.” Delp ’018, col. 22, ll. 45-47 (Ex. 1004).
`
`Stulberg
`
`52. Stulberg compares computer-assisted total knee replacement
`
`techniques with mechanically based techniques. Stulberg, p. 25 (Ex. 1005). For
`
`example, Stulberg explains that with a computer-assisted technique, the surgeon
`
`can track the position of the cutting block relative to the distal femur using a
`
`computer system, whereas with a “[m]echanical technique,” an “intramedullary rod
`
`is introduced into the femoral canal” to position the cutting block. Stulberg, pp.
`
`30-31 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Radermacher ’157
`
`53. Radermacher ’157 discloses “individual templates” manufactured for
`
`specific patients based on preoperative imaging. Radermacher ’157, pp. 9-10 (Ex.
`
`WMT 1002-26
`
`
`
`1007). An individual template has a “negative image” of the unique structure of a
`
`specific patient’s bone so that it can be positioned on the bone “in a clearly defined
`
`position.” Id. An individual template can also have “guide means” for “cutting . . .
`
`steps” of an orthopedic surgery. Id., p. 11 (Ex. 1007). Because an individual
`
`template has a negative image of a specific unique bone structure, it is positioned
`
`“without any further intraoperative devices” such as intramedullary and
`
`extramedullary devices. Id., p. 15 (Ex. 1007). Individual templates can be used
`
`for “treatment of osseous [bone] structures for any orthopedic intervention,”
`
`including a knee arthroplasty. Radermacher ’157, pp. 11, 19 (Ex. 1007).
`
`Radermacher