`
`In re Patent of: Curran et al.
`
`8,361,156
`US. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`January 29, 2013
`Appl. Ser. No.: 13/441,092
`Filing Date:
`April 6, 2012
`Title:
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SPINAL FUSION
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 10813600033
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN D. DERIDDER REGARDING
`
`U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATION NO. 2002/0165550
`
`MSD 1002
`
`
`
`1.
`
`My name is Steven D. DeRidder. In 1979, I earned an AA degree in
`
`Mechanical Design from Heald Institute of Technology. Since then I have
`
`nurtured a career within multiple disciplinary aspects of the engineering field for a
`
`variety of companies. I have also attended a number of engineering courses
`
`stressing proper manufacturing practices, Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing,
`
`Total Quality Management, and Project management.
`
`2.
`
`My expertise and knowledge in Geometric Dimensioning &
`
`Tolerancing led, in 1993, to an invitation to participate in the review and draft for
`
`the next release of the ANSI Yl4.5 standard. In my critique, I submitted 30
`
`comments/corrections and was present at the Yl4.5 committee meeting when 15 of
`
`those were adopted into the new standard; the other 15 were deferred for further
`
`review and possible incorporation at a later date.
`
`3.
`
`For three different companies, I have prepared materials and given
`
`lectures and/or taught classes on the disciplines of Proper Drawing Practices, CAD
`
`modeling and drawing, Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing, and The Use and
`
`Interpretation of ANSI Weld Symbols. As part of my current job description and
`
`responsibility, I continue to mentor young designers and engineers in the art of
`
`design along with other engineering related disciplines.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a senior principal design technician for Medtronic
`
`Spine & Biologics, where I have worked for more than fifteen years. My
`
`
`
`responsibilities include conceptual design, final design, project management, and
`
`peer mentorship.
`
`I am an expert user of computer aided design and drafting
`
`software (CAD Systems) and currently use Creo from Parametric Technologies
`
`Corporation. I am currently named as inventor on 27 United States patents, all
`
`within the medical industry, twelve of them related to spinal fusion implants.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I
`
`have reviewed in this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) related to US. Patent No.
`
`8,361,156 (the “‘ 156 patent”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding
`
`the same subject matter. I have been asked to consider what one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood from the prior art to the ‘334 patent, specifically
`
`US. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0165550 to Frey (“Frey”).
`
`6.
`
`My opinion is guided by the fact that I am a named inventor of the
`
`invention described in Frey, as well as my appreciation of how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of Frey, including
`
`the Figures contained therein at the time of the publication of Frey on November 7,
`
`2002.
`
`7.
`
`Based on my expertise, my experience conceiving and reducing to
`
`practice the invention disclosed in Frey, and my knowledge of the commercial
`
`embodiments of the spinal fusion implant described in Frey, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at least Figures 47, 55, 59, 63,
`
`
`
`64, and 66 of Frey are to scale, and that the dimensions of these figures correspond
`
`to the actual dimensions of one or more embodiments of the invention disclosed in
`
`Frey.
`
`8.
`
`Additionally, I know as a matter of fact, as a named inventor in Frey,
`
`that Figures 47, 55, 59, 63, 64, and 66 are indeed drawn to scale to represent one or
`
`more embodiments of the spinal fusion implant inventions described in that patent
`
`application.
`
`9.
`
`Further, Figures 47, 55, 59, 63, 64, and 66 are identical to the
`
`engineering drawings of the implants that these Figures were derived from for the
`
`purposes of including them in Frey. These engineering drawings were, by
`
`definition, drawn to scale, hence Figures 47, 55, 59, 63, 64, and 66 are as well.
`
`10.
`
`The curvatures of the opposing sidewalls located in the middle portion
`
`of the implant, as depicted in Figure 63, are generally similar. As a result, the
`
`maximum lateral width of the implant, as measured from one sidewall to the other
`
`sidewall along a plane that is perpendicular to the length of the implant, is found at
`
`the exact center of the middle portion of the implant, including the medial plane of
`
`the implant. This maximum lateral width of the implant is also found along its
`
`middle portion where the curves of the opposing sidewalls remain generally similar
`
`as shown below in a true and accurate reproduction of Figure 63 below.
`
`
`
`Maximum
`
`Lateral Width
`
`Middle Portion
`
`11.
`
`As described in our Frey application, we positioned the maximum
`
`lateral width of the implant in its middle portion to allow the implant to better fill
`
`the disc space, thereby providing optimal load support capacity and helping to
`
`prevent implant subsidence. See Frey, at ‘I[ [0149].
`
`12. Although I am an employee of the Petitioner, no part of my
`
`compensation is dependent on the outcome of this proceeding and I have no other
`
`interest in this proceeding.
`
`13.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`
`
`Dated:W[ '+
`
`WW
`
`Steven D. DeRidder
`
`