`00111, Paper No. 45 and IPR2014-00395,
`Paper No. 40
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`March 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`and MEDTRONIC COREVALUE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111
`and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`____________
`
`Held: January 27, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, BARRY L. GROSSMAN,
`and SHERIDAN SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, January
`27, 2015, commencing at 2:03 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`EVAN FINKEL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`
`
`725 South Figueroa Street
`
`
`Suite 2800
`
`
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5406
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES J. KERNELL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Erickson Kernell Derusseau & Kleypas, LLC
`
`
`8900 State Line Road
`
`
`Suite 500
`
`
`Leawood, Kansas 66206
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Good afternoon, everyone. This is
`
`a trial hearing for IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and
`
`IPR2014-00395 between Petitioner Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic
`
`Vascular, Inc. and Medtronic Corevalue, LLC on one side and the
`
`owner of U.S. Patent Number 6,482,228, Troy R. Norred, M.D.
`
`Just a few administrative matters before we begin. I'm
`
`Judge Weatherly and with me are Judge Snedden on my right and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Judge Grossman on my left. Please identify -- during your
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`presentation, please identify by number any slides that you're
`
`discussing to make our transcript a little easier for us to read and use.
`
`As you know per our order, each party has one hour to
`
`present their argument. Because Petitioner has the burden to show
`
`unpatentability of the original claims, Petitioner will proceed first
`
`followed by Patent Owner. Patent Owner may also discuss its
`
`motions to amend in its time. Both parties may reserve rebuttal time.
`
`However, Patent Owner may only use its time to rebut Petitioner's
`
`argument related to the motion to amend or motions to amend, excuse
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`me.
`
`11
`
`Before we begin the argument, Patent Owner may wish to
`
`12
`
`address some of its objections to Petitioner's demonstrative exhibits.
`
`13
`
`If so, the time needed to resolve those objections will count against
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner's one-hour time allotment.
`
`15
`
`At this time we'd like counsel to introduce yourselves and
`
`16
`
`whom you have with you, beginning with the Petitioner, please.
`
`17
`
`MR. FINKEL: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Evan
`
`18
`
`Finkel. I'm from Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of Petitioner. Sitting
`
`19
`
`at counsel's table is my partner, Jack Barufka. And do you want to
`
`20
`
`know everybody here?
`
`21
`
`22
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Chad Hanson from Medtronic and Michael
`
`23
`
`Horikawa from my firm, Sean Edman from Medtronic and David
`
`24
`
`Ruschke from Medtronic.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you. Would you like to
`
`reserve time?
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes. We'd like to reserve 25 minutes, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you.
`
`Patent Owner, would you like to address -- I'm sorry, Patent
`
`Owner, if you wouldn't mind approaching -- approach and introduce
`
`who you have with you.
`
`MR. KERNELL: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Jim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Kernell and with me is David Marcus. We are here on behalf of Dr.
`
`11
`
`Troy Norred.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you. And who do you --
`
`13
`
`are these guests of yours behind you or --
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. KERNELL: We have no guests.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right. Thank you very much.
`
`While I have you up at the podium, would you like to
`
`17
`
`address any objections to Petitioner's demonstrative exhibits before
`
`18
`
`we begin?
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. KERNELL: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you.
`
`Then I'll call Petitioner to the podium to begin the
`
`22
`
`presentation.
`
`23
`
`MR. FINKEL: Can I ask one administrative question, Your
`
`24
`
`Honor?
`
`25
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Yes.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`MR. FINKEL: As far as timing, the clock or anything, give
`
`me warning or --
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I'm going to keep the time myself.
`
`We'll use the clock on the wall. So I understand you've reserved 25
`
`minutes.
`
`MR. FINKEL: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`May it please the Board, we'll be referring directly to the
`
`slides that we submitted, so we'll start off with slide 1 presently on the
`
`screen. And this just gives you the overview of the instituted grounds
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`that identify the three IPRs and the prior art asserted against each
`
`11
`
`claim in respect to each of the IPRs. So it's a basic slide for your use.
`
`12
`
`I would like to start off with the background of the '228
`
`13
`
`patent. The first slide you'll see, this is actually slide 2. So because
`
`14
`
`the title of the invention is percutaneous aortic valve replacement and
`
`15
`
`you'll see here it's a valve. It's not a stent. The title is directly
`
`16
`
`directed to the fact that it is a valve as the invention.
`
`17
`
`The next slide number 4 says, the '228 patent discloses four
`
`18
`
`valve embodiments, and the purpose of this slide is something to
`
`19
`
`identify the only four embodiments of a valve disclosed in the patent.
`
`20
`
`You'll see the umbrella valve, the cadaver valve, the conical valve and
`
`21
`
`the trihedral valve there on slide 4 and it also gives you the references
`
`22
`
`to the specification where those embodiments are discussed for easy
`
`23
`
`reference.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`I'd like to then turn to the claim construction issues which
`
`impact a lot of the other issues that are before the Board today. Ring
`
`member not limited to pliable material. This is slide 6, Your Honor.
`
`And the purpose here is that there's been a lot of discussion
`
`about whether ring member should be limited to a pliable material.
`
`That was the Patent Owner's proposed construction. The Board
`
`disagreed and said it's not limited to pliable material.
`
`The next slide, number 7, is here to show you that our
`
`expert, Dr. Hill, agrees with the Board that the claims are not limited
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to pliable material. It's not necessary for the invention and it also
`
`11
`
`specifies in paragraph 42, again on slide 7, that the term "pliable" is a
`
`12
`
`relative term and it alone does not inform one of ordinary skill in the
`
`13
`
`art as to its meaning. If anything, the addition of the term "pliable"
`
`14
`
`would make the claim less understandable. So this is just confirming
`
`15
`
`what the Board has already concluded to date.
`
`16
`
`The next claim construction issue we'd like to turn to, it is
`
`17
`
`the means for mounting and moving the membrane. And it's
`
`18
`
`important that we phrase it this way, because a -- I'm sorry, this is also
`
`19
`
`slide 8, Your Honor. It's important because, as you'll see from the
`
`20
`
`claim, there's a single means specified and it has two functions, a
`
`21
`
`mounting function and a moving function, and they're both important
`
`22
`
`in determining what structure would correspond with the means
`
`23
`
`specified in the claim.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`And the next slide is number 10 here, Your Honor, and it
`
`refers to the means for mounting and moving the membrane in the
`
`conical valve embodiment that we previously saw in the original slide.
`
`And you'll see that what is the means for mounting and
`
`moving. You will see it is the fingers 68, which you can see there,
`
`hingedly secured together by the ring 72 extending through the base,
`
`and it specifically specifies here on the slide and each slide gives you
`
`both the citations to the evidence as well as what we cited, the
`
`information in our briefs.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`And you'll see it's the fingers that move up and down. On
`
`11
`
`the left side of the slide, you will see the device or valve in the closed
`
`12
`
`configuration, the membrane is 75. And in the slide to the picture on
`
`13
`
`the right, you will see the membrane in the open configuration.
`
`14
`
`And this is important for a lot of reasons, which we'll
`
`15
`
`discuss, but you'll see that the device or valve has width to it, if you
`
`16
`
`will. There's an opening at the bottom that's always open. There's an
`
`17
`
`opening at the top referred to in the claims as the second spaced-apart
`
`18
`
`opening that opens and closes. So you have effectively a device with
`
`19
`
`two separate open ends with a separate open end -- second open end
`
`20
`
`opening and closing, and that's important in connection with the
`
`21
`
`means for mounting.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So the first open end is always
`
`23
`
`open and the second open end is open when it's opened and closed
`
`24
`
`when it's closed.
`
`25
`
`MR. FINKEL: Exactly, Your Honor.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Thank you.
`
`So now let's turn -- the next slide, slide 11, is merely to give
`
`you the benefit of all -- you know, four figures for each of them. The
`
`top shows you the closed position so you can see the other view and
`
`the bottom shows you the open position, both -- the other view, just so
`
`you could see that and benefit from that easily.
`
`So now let's turn to the trihedral valve embodiment on slide
`
`12. The trihedral valve embodiment is also very, very similar. You
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`will see that it has arms 84 instead of fingers of the four, but,
`
`11
`
`otherwise, it is essentially the same type of device. You have the
`
`12
`
`arms 84 hingedly attached to the ring. They move up and down.
`
`13
`
`Again, you have an open bottom end, a spaced-apart open top end that
`
`14
`
`closes and opens to allow blood flow to flow or not to flow, same
`
`15
`
`concept.
`
`16
`
`I'm going to skip -- I'm sorry, the next slide is slide 13 and it
`
`17
`
`really, again, shows you more pictures so you can have the benefit of
`
`18
`
`this. The top is the closed configuration. The bottom is the open
`
`19
`
`configuration, same concept, though. For purposes of claim
`
`20
`
`construction, we think this is very important.
`
`21
`
`So here is our proposed construction on slide 14, Your
`
`22
`
`Honor, of the means for mounting and means for moving. We would
`
`23
`
`respectfully submit that it should be fingers or arms for the two
`
`24
`
`embodiments hingedly attached or hingedly secured to the ring
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`member and a free end spaced therefrom and, of course, you get the
`
`equivalents of the 112, 6, now 112(f).
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Let me ask you a question about
`
`the free end spaced therefrom language, because this was a little bit of
`
`a challenge for me originally, but -- so in what way is -- the free end
`
`spaced therefrom is I presume the end that defines the second open --
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And spaced therefrom. When
`
`these valves are closed, I suppose they're still spaced. They're spaced
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`therefrom. Help me understand exactly what you mean by that.
`
`11
`
`MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, let me maybe give you a little
`
`12
`
`insight to where that language came from, if I might.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Claim 17 is directed to one of the
`
`15
`
`embodiments, the embodiment with the mounting means being the
`
`16
`
`arm, if you will, and the language comes directly from Claim 17,
`
`17
`
`where Claim 17 says, mounting means comprises at least one arm
`
`18
`
`having a first end hingedly secured to said ring member and the free
`
`19
`
`end spaced therefrom.
`
`20
`
`So the free end means it's free from the ring member. The
`
`21
`
`ring member is on the bottom. It's spaced apart. It's free. It's not
`
`22
`
`enclosed in the ring. It's not limited by any ring. And that's where we
`
`23
`
`got that language from, Your Honor.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And what's your position about the
`
`25
`
`way in which Claim 17 narrows the scope of Claim 16?
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`MR. FINKEL: Well, I think Claim 17 narrows it to a
`
`specific embodiment where they would call whatever arm structure
`
`would be considered as opposed to a finger structure.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So it can to the embodiment that's
`
`shown in Figures 14 through 17, is that the --
`
`MR. FINKEL: Let's go back, Your Honor. If you go back
`
`to the trihedral valve and I'm, again, now at slide 12, you'll see that
`
`refers to the arms 84. Now, one might say arms and fingers are the
`
`same. I understand that. But as you know, I'm sure very well, you're
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`supposed to use the structures in the specification, plus equivalents
`
`11
`
`thereof. We wanted to be properly inclusive, so there were two
`
`12
`
`embodiments, arms and fingers, so we used both terms.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: So your argument is that in terms of
`
`15
`
`the structure for mounting, you need the arms or your fingers and not
`
`16
`
`just the hinged portion.
`
`17
`
`MR. FINKEL: That's absolutely correct, you need arms or
`
`18
`
`fingers. That is the structure.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And that's because of the moving
`
`20
`
`function that's recited.
`
`21
`
`MR. FINKEL: The moving function and to space
`
`22
`
`something apart and hold it to move it between two positions, yes,
`
`23
`
`Your Honor.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I'm not sure I really fully
`
`25
`
`understand your position about Claim 17 and what it covers or doesn't
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`cover and I don't know if you've really taken a position in terms of
`
`whether it discloses that -- or claims or is limited in scope to the
`
`embodiment that's shown in Figures 14 through 17 I think it is.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Oh, I see the question, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Or -- I mean, in other words, that's
`
`the -- the specification refers to those structures as "arms," and I know
`
`it's Claim 17.
`
`MR. FINKEL: I see your point. I would think of arms and
`
`fingers as equivalent in the context of this patent. I regard them just
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`as using different terminologies. And, In fact, the patent sometimes
`
`11
`
`uses little tweaks of the technology.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So then in your view, Claim 17 is
`
`13
`
`reciting positive structure within the scope of the means-plus-function
`
`14
`
`element that's recited in Claim 16.
`
`15
`
`MR. FINKEL: Absolutely. It's reciting one part of the
`
`16
`
`structure, yes, Your Honor.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: That might actually cover more
`
`18
`
`than one embodiment that's shown in the specification.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. FINKEL: Correct.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. All right. Sorry for the
`
`21
`
`interruption.
`
`22
`
`MR. FINKEL: No, as often as you like, Your Honor.
`
`23
`
`Thank you so much.
`
`24
`
`So getting back to our slide 14 very quickly, we give the
`
`25
`
`reasons why we think this is the proper construction. It's consistent
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`with the conical valve embodiment, it's consistent with the trihedral
`
`valve embodiment and it's consistent with Claim 17, so we believe it's
`
`the proper construction.
`
`Now, if you turn to slide 15, we recognize fully that the
`
`Board in its original decision to grant the trial said, as reasonable at
`
`this stage of the proceeding, a construction of the means for mounting
`
`and moving the membrane, you defined it in terms of hingedly
`
`secured and hingedly attached about a ring aperture. We fully
`
`understand that in respect to what you said.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`We would respectfully submit that the construction is a little
`
`11
`
`bit incomplete. Because as the Federal Circuit has said, the phrase
`
`12
`
`"hingedly connected" is not a structure, but it's, instead, considered to
`
`13
`
`be a function. And in the case of Beckson Marine that you'll see
`
`14
`
`there, they actually dealt with the phrase "hingedly connected." They
`
`15
`
`said it wasn't a structure.
`
`16
`
`And under 112, 6 they actually read into, if you will, that
`
`17
`
`means-plus-function limitation a lot of significant structure to require
`
`18
`
`a windowpane connected to a mounting flange using hinge lugs,
`
`19
`
`etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So we would simply refer you to that.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So I just want to make sure that
`
`21
`
`I'm understanding the basis for your proposed interpretation. I'll ask
`
`22
`
`that if the claim language were not to recite this moving function also,
`
`23
`
`but, instead, would be recited as simply a means for mounting said
`
`24
`
`first open end of said membrane about said ring aperture with said
`
`25
`
`second open end displaced therefrom, then it might refer simply to the
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`hinged structure, the hinge itself in connection, and it's the presence of
`
`moving in the claim that brings the other parts of the structure into
`
`play or am I not understanding correctly?
`
`MR. FINKEL: No, I would say that the moving certainly
`
`brings it in. I haven't really focused on whether a means for mounting
`
`without also moving would not also require some form of arm.
`
`Because the fact is that the way the claim is actually written,
`
`it talks about the means for mounting said first open end of said
`
`membrane about said ring aperture with said second open end
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`displaced therefrom, and I don't think a hinge at one end would
`
`11
`
`necessarily really perform that joint function with respect to the
`
`12
`
`second open end, so I'm not so sure that would actually be correct,
`
`13
`
`Your Honor.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Finkel.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes, sir.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you go back in your slide where
`
`18
`
`you're proposing a construction for the means for mounting.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes, sir.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: How does your use of hingedly
`
`21
`
`attached or hingedly secured overcome the problem that you just
`
`22
`
`identified in the Federal Circuit case law?
`
`23
`
`MR. FINKEL: Because it adds the structure of the fingers
`
`24
`
`or arms. And as you well know, Your Honor, when you do a
`
`25
`
`means-plus-function claim the first thing is you identify the function,
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`you look at the function and you may have to define the function
`
`somewhere.
`
`And as we understood what you had done the first time
`
`around, so to speak, was to define the function, so we used what you
`
`defined as the function. We didn't have a problem with that at all, and
`
`we simply added the structure per the case law, plus 112, 6, the In re
`
`Donaldson case that deals with how you interpret the means plus
`
`function in your courtroom and 112, 6.
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: So the use of the language "hingedly
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`secured," what you're saying is that's different from secured with a
`
`11
`
`hinge, I mean, in terms of -- hinge to me kind of connotes some kind
`
`12
`
`of structure.
`
`13
`
`MR. FINKEL: Well, the case would say it doesn't and I
`
`14
`
`don't believe that it connotes the structure in the patent, which is really
`
`15
`
`under 112, 6. You have to look at what the structure is in the patent
`
`16
`
`that performs the function and the structure is the fingers and arms.
`
`17
`
`The structure is not some other amorphus type of hinge. That would
`
`18
`
`be our position.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: So how are the fingers operating with
`
`20
`
`the hinge structure, is it then -- well, the fingers are hinges to be
`
`21
`
`attached.
`
`22
`
`MR. FINKEL: Correct. The way the embodiments are
`
`23
`
`shown in the patent, there is the arm that's hingedly secured to the ring
`
`24
`
`member and then at the other end, the top end or the second surface,
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`it's also attached but not hingedly attached and it moves it up and
`
`down.
`
`So now I'd like to turn to slide 18. I skipped over a few
`
`slides. I was going to try to cut back a little bit, Your Honor, if that's
`
`okay.
`
`The next claim construction we would like to address is
`
`means for maintaining, which is for Independent Claims 20 and
`
`Dependent Claim 19, and that was slide 18. It's just the title slide.
`
`So here we look at slide 19. If I misspoke before, I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`apologize on the slides. And there you see the actual claim language.
`
`11
`
`So you can see exactly what -- it's the same in 19 and the same in 20,
`
`12
`
`19 being a dependent claim.
`
`13
`
`Here is the '228 patent and, in fact, this is slide 20 and it
`
`14
`
`discloses two types of rods, rods that are part of the stent system 28
`
`15
`
`and connecting rods 104 that are part of the valve. The Board
`
`16
`
`obviously knows this, because it recited it in its opinion, the decision.
`
`17
`
`And the Board's construction rejected the Patent Owner's argument
`
`18
`
`with respect to the means for maintaining.
`
`19
`
`The Patent Owner had tried to argue that the means for
`
`20
`
`maintaining was essentially the stent system alone and we had argued,
`
`21
`
`in fact, Your Honor, that it wasn't connecting rods 104 alone. And the
`
`22
`
`Board decided that the proper construction was its rods 104
`
`23
`
`interacting with the stent 28 -- this is slide 21 -- that are the structures
`
`24
`
`corresponding to the means for maintaining.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`We would just point out, Your Honor, that the patent itself is
`
`really directed to a valve, as its title suggests, as all the embodiments
`
`suggest. The claims are all directed to a valve. As they say, every
`
`claim begins aortic valve and the stent is a separate structure. You
`
`know, you've seen language like valve stent combination. That's a
`
`combination of two elements. The claims are really directed to the
`
`valve alone.
`
`So we would submit that our construction would be more
`
`accurate saying it's the connecting rods 104, but at a minimum we
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`would suggest that it's connecting rods 104 for interacting with a stent
`
`11
`
`as opposed to the stent itself being affirmative limitations in the claim.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: Are there any embodiments in the
`
`13
`
`specification, which you have a valve that's not interacting with a
`
`14
`
`stent?
`
`15
`
`MR. FINKEL: Well, there are many embodiments where
`
`16
`
`it's not interacting, yes, but it's for interacting. For example, the stent
`
`17
`
`is only shown in the early figures. And then what the subsequent
`
`18
`
`embodiments show you is valves for interacting with a stent, but they
`
`19
`
`don't show you the stent. They say it's for interacting with the stent
`
`20
`
`and they say you could use a stent that's shown previously.
`
`21
`
`They do say that, but those other embodiments never show
`
`22
`
`you a stent as part of the invention. They say it's the valve for
`
`23
`
`interacting with the stent and that's why I suggested that there might
`
`24
`
`an appropriate, in your discretion, of course --
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: So when you say means for
`
`maintaining, the way I understand your argument is that it's
`
`maintaining the valve on the stent. Is that what you're saying?
`
`Because the claim actually -- I'm looking at Claim 19. It says, means
`
`for maintaining said ring member in said seat about the aortic wall.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: And so my question, then, would be,
`
`how does it maintain in said seat about the aortic wall without the
`
`stent?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. FINKEL: I would suggest that the way it's going to do
`
`11
`
`it, the way the valve is constructed to do that, is to use the connecting
`
`12
`
`arms 104 for -- connecting rod 104, for example. That is the means
`
`13
`
`that's going to be used. You're right, until we get the stent it's not
`
`14
`
`maintained "in the aorta," but then, you know, that deals with the use
`
`15
`
`of the device once it's implemented.
`
`16
`
`You know, gas is for running a car, but the car is not
`
`17
`
`necessarily part of a claim. You know, means for running the --
`
`18
`
`means for propelling a car may be the gas in the context of a claim on
`
`19
`
`a chemical compound. The car is not part of the claim, but it is the
`
`20
`
`means that's going to be used in the car. That's the kind of concept
`
`21
`
`that I'm trying to suggest.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So is it sort of implied in your
`
`23
`
`position, as I'm hearing it, is that the phrasing in the preamble of all
`
`24
`
`the claims being directed to "an aortic valve" has some sort of
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`preclusive effect such that it doesn't refer to structures that are part of
`
`the stent, but only refers to structures that are part of the valve?
`
`MR. FINKEL: I would respectfully submit that the claim is
`
`not intended as written originally to cover or to apply to a stent
`
`system. It was intended, as the whole patent is written, here's a stent
`
`and, by the way, now we talk about the invention, here are the four
`
`embodiments of a valve and they go into great detail about the valve.
`
`So, yes, I would suggest that that is intended to being what follows is
`
`all related to the valve and not to a stent.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: But these means for maintaining
`
`11
`
`it, if they include the -- for example rods 104, there's no argument
`
`12
`
`from you that rods 104 are -- I mean, they're not part of a valve.
`
`13
`
`MR. FINKEL: They actually are depicted as being part of
`
`14
`
`the valve.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I understand, but they don't
`
`16
`
`perform a function of a valve. They don't affect the flow of blood
`
`17
`
`through the structure at all, correct?
`
`18
`
`MR. FINKEL: Correct, but I would submit that that is what
`
`19
`
`the patent describes as the valve.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So what's claimed from your
`
`21
`
`perspective, then, is a valve, plus some structures for interacting with
`
`22
`
`a stent.
`
`23
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes. The valve structure, yes, as they define
`
`24
`
`the valve structure.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: But not the stent itself.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`MR. FINKEL: Correct. But as I said, I want to be clear that
`
`if the Board was going to utilize the stent in defining the limitation, I
`
`would submit that it should be the rod for interacting with. It may
`
`turn out to be --
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And if we were to disagree about
`
`that and say that the claim actually recites the stent system as well in
`
`the form of the means for maintaining, how that would affect --
`
`MR. FINKEL: I don't think it affects the prior art or
`
`anything we've been discussing.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: Can we speak to this with reference to
`
`11
`
`one of the figures? Just pick one of the embodiments and then show
`
`12
`
`me what you think would be the means for maintaining the valve
`
`13
`
`structure.
`
`14
`
`MR. FINKEL: Sure, Your Honor. If you turn in the patent
`
`15
`
`to the embodiment -- and let's keep -- let's look at the embodiment in
`
`16
`
`Figure 18 of the patent, Your Honor. It's Exhibit 1001 in each of the
`
`17
`
`proceedings. They're connecting rods 104 would be the example.
`
`18
`
`In the prior figures, you will see a discussion of -- let's see, if
`
`19
`
`you look at Figure 8, the embodiment there, you will see rod --
`
`20
`
`connecting rods 56. That would be another example and I actually
`
`21
`
`have a little chart I prepared with respect to this.
`
`22
`
`So you'll see that in Figure 8 it's connecting rods 56. I
`
`23
`
`believe that you will find that for the next embodiment they talk about
`
`24
`
`using the same structures as the prior one. I think there's connecting
`
`25
`
`rods 58. I'm sorry, this embodiment talks about using the other
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`embodiment as well. It says, the structures can be similar, is the
`
`phraseology in the patent. So that's what I'm referring to, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE SNEDDEN: Okay. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Finkel, one more question about
`
`your means for maintaining. That functional recitation in Claim 20 is
`
`not just means for maintaining. It is means for maintaining the ring
`
`member in a seated position.
`
`MR. FINKEL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: I just want to be clear that I
`
`11
`
`understand your position. You would like us to say that those rods
`
`12
`
`104 in Figure 18, for example, are all that you need to maintain the
`
`13
`
`valve in a seated position about the aortic wall and that -- is it your
`
`14
`
`position that it will function just fine without that stent?
`
`15
`
`MR. FINKEL: No, Your Honor. It would be freestanding
`
`16
`
`in that case.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would it be maintained in a seated
`
`18
`
`position without the stent?
`
`19
`
`MR. FINKEL: It needs to be connected up to, as I said, for
`
`20
`
`connecting up to a stent.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: We can only look to a structure
`
`22
`
`that's disclosed to interpret that means plus function.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. FINKEL: Absolutely, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any other structure that's
`
`25
`
`disclosed other than a stent for maintaining?
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, IPR2014-00111 and IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228
`
`
`MR. FINKEL: You mean to go with the connecting rods
`
`you mean?
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
`
`MR. FINKEL: There are other references to -- for example,
`
`I think it's -- I have to look at the number, but I believe it's -- if you
`
`look at column 5 of the patent at line -- about 48, it talks about
`
`connecting rod 80 in Figure 10, but not shown in that figure, so let's
`
`look at Figure 10. There's a connecting rod there.
`
`So basically in the last embodiment it's 104. In the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`embodiment regarding the conical valve, it's 80. In the embodiment --
`
`11
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would Claim 20 cover that conical
`
`12
`
`valve in the other embodiments? Because Claim 20 talks about a
`
`13
`
`tissue valve and most of the discussion and materials that have been
`
`14
`
`submitted focus on Claim 20 on Figure 18, which is the tissue valve.
`
`15
`
`MR. FINKEL: That's correct. I'm sorry, I misunderstood
`
`16
`
`your question.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Claim 20 is the means --
`
`MR. FINKEL: In Claim 20 is 104.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So that would be the only disclosure
`
`20
`
`would be the Figure 18 embodiment for Claim 20?
`
`21
`
`MR. FINKEL: Correct. In fact, Claim 20 only -- for a
`
`22
`
`tissue valve, the only embodiment is disclosed as 18 and 19. It's one
`
`23
`
`paragraph at the end of the patent, that's correct.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So in trying to interpret the means
`
`25