`Exhibit 1003
`
`Page 1 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`Filed: May 3, 2006
`Issued:
`
`
`
`Inventors: Howard Root, Greg Sutton,
`Jeffrey M. Welch, Jason M. Garrity
`
`Assignee: Vascular Solutions, Inc.
`
`Title: Coaxial Guide Catheter For
`Interventional Cardiology Procedures
`
`DECLARATION BY RONALD SOLAR, PH.D. REGARDING U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,142,413 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 57
`
`I, Ronald Jay Solar, Ph.D., do declare and state as follows:
`I.
`
`Background and Experience
`1.
`I received my B.S. in Metallurgy and Materials Science from
`
`Pennsylvania State University in 1972, and my Ph.D. in Metallurgy, Materials
`
`Science and Biomaterials from University of Pennsylvania in 1976. My studies
`
`focused on surgical implants.
`2.
`
`Since graduation, virtually all of my experience has involved working
`
`with various companies on the design, development, and testing of medical
`
`devices, the vast majority of which have been in the field of interventional
`
`cardiology.
`3.
`
`Combined, I have over thirty-seven years of academic and industry
`
`experience in all aspects of design, research, development, clinical testing,
`
`regulation, patenting, manufacture, production, quality control and assurance,
`
`marketing, and sales of medical devices. The predominant focus of my work in the
`
`medical device industry has been in the design and development of interventional
`
`cardiology devices within the peripheral and coronary vascular marketplace. I am a
`
`named inventor of fifty U.S. patents on diagnostic and therapeutic catheters,
`
`guidewires, vascular stents, and stent delivery systems, and I have extensive
`
`experience with the design and functionality of such devices.
`4.
`
`Attached to this declaration is a copy of my curriculum vitae at
`
`Appendix A.
`5.
`
`I am presently the President and Founder of Renaissance Biomedical,
`
`Inc., which is a consulting firm focusing on all aspects of the medical device
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 57
`
`industry, including research, design, technical, marketing, patent, clinical, and
`
`regulatory issues.
`6.
`
`I am not employed by, nor receiving grant support from, Boston
`
`Scientific Corporation or its subsidiary, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. I am
`
`receiving compensation for my involvement in this matter based on my standard
`
`hourly consulting fees. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this case. A
`
`listing of testimony that I have provided in prior proceedings and my compensation
`
`is attached hereto as Appendix B.
`7.
`
`I am competent to make this declaration based upon my personal
`
`knowledge and technical expertise in the area of interventional cardiology devices
`
`In preparing my opinions, I have considered the following materials:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (Exh. 1001 )
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (Exh. 1002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 (Exh. 1004)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,292,850 (Exh. 1005)
`
`and procedures.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 (Exh. 1006)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,292,850 (Exh. 1007)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0195546 A1 to Solar, et al. (Exh. 1008)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,638,2168 to Niazi (Exh. 1009)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0004523 A1 to Osborne, et al. (Exh. 1010)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/0127927 to Adams (Exh. 1011)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,338,725 B1 to Hermann et al. (Exh. 1012)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,232,452 to Adams et al. (Exh. 1013)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,776,141 to Klein et al. (Exh. 1014)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,232,452 to Adams et al. (Exh. 1015)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,328,472 to Steinke et al. (Exh. 1016)
`
`Takahashi et al., “New Method to Increase a Backup Support of a 6
`
`French Guiding Coronary Catheter,” Catherization and Cardiovascular
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,690,613 to Verbeek (Exh. 1018)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,156,594 to Keith (Exh. 1019)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,102,403 to Alt (Exh. 1020)
`
`Interventions 63:452-456 (2004) (Exh. 1017)
`
`
`
`
`
`Kucklick, Theodore R., The Medical Device R&D Handbook (2006)
`
`(Exh. 1021)
`
`
`Non-confidential publicly available versions of the following filings
`
`and decisions in the ongoing District Court litigation:
`a. Amended Complaint filed by Vascular Solutions, Inc. in Vascular
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172
`
`(JRT-SER) (D. Minn.) (May 28, 2013) (Exh. 1022)
`b. Memorandum In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed
`
`by Vascular Solutions, Inc. in Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston
`
`Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172 (JRT-SER) (D. Minn.)
`
`(June 10, 2013) (Exh. 1023)
`c. Declaration of Howard Root In Support of Vascular Solution, Inc.’s
`
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Non-Confidential Exhibits
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 57
`
`filed in Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No.
`
`13-cv-1172 (JRT-SER) (D. Minn.) (June 10, 2013) (Exh. 1024)
`d. Boston Scientific Corporation Opposition to Vascular Solutions,
`
`Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Vascular Solutions,
`
`Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172 (JRT-SER) (D.
`
`Minn.) (July 28, 2013) (Exh. 1025)
`e. Non-Confidential Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting In Part
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Vascular
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172
`
`(JRT-SER) (D. Minn.) (December 19, 2013) (Exh. 1026)
`f. Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for An Interim Stay and Stay
`
`Pending Appeal, No. 2014-1185 (Fed. Cir.) filed December 27, 2013
`
`(Exh. 1027)
`g. Vascular Solutions, Inc.’s Opposition to Boston Scientific
`
`Corporation’s Motion for An Interim Stay and Stay Pending Appeal,
`
`No. 2014-1185 (Fed. Cir.) filed January 3, 2014 (Exh. 1028)
`h. Boston Scientific Corporation’s Non-Confidential Opening Brief, No.
`
`2014-1185 (Fed. Cir.) filed January 7, 2014 (Exh. 1029)
`i. Vascular Solutions, Inc.’s Non-Confidential Responsive Brief, No.
`
`2014-1185 (Fed. Cir.) filed January 29, 2014 (Exh. 1030)
`j. Declaration of Anthony Vrba In Support of Boston Scientific
`Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Vascular
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 57
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172
`(JRT-SER) (D. Minn.) (July 8, 2013) (Exh. 1031)
`k. Boston Scientific Corporation’s Reply Brief, No. 2014-1185 (Fed.
`
`Cir.) filed February 3, 2014 (Exh. 1032)
`l. Transcript of Oral Argument Proceedings held on April 8, 2014 (Fed.
`
`Cir.) (Exh. 1033)
`m. Federal Circuit Order Vacating Preliminary Injunction (April 15,
`
`2014) (Exh. 1034)
`n. Joint Claim Construction Statement filed in Vascular Solutions, Inc. v.
`
`Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 13-cv-1172 (JRT-SER) (D. Minn.)
`
`(February 21, 2014) (Exh. 1035)
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,997,908 B2 to Carrillo, Jr., et al. (Exh. 1036)
`
`Monorail Piccolino Publication, Introducing the Schneider
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0165598 A1 to Wahr et al. (Exh. 1038)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,267,958 to Buchbinder et al. (Exh. 1039)
`
`MONORAIL-GEX Guidewire Exchange Catheter Brochure (Exh. 1037)
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Publication No.2004/0236215 A1to Mihara et al. (Exh. 1040)
`
`portions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP),
`
`including Sections 2131, 2141-2145;
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and the MPEP
`
`sections cited therein.
`
`The documents I have reviewed are reflected in my analysis.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 57
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Patent, Prior Art, and Analysis
`A. Overview of the Relevant Technology
`8.
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ‘413 patent”)
`
`(Exh. 1001) are directed to the field of interventional cardiology procedures, such
`as the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. (Id., 1:7-36.) During such
`procedures, physicians deploy thin, flexible treatment devices, such as guidewires,
`
`balloon catheters, filters, stents, stent catheters, or other devices to treat a blockage
`
`(occlusion) or narrowing (stenosis) in the arteries due to atherosclerotic plaques or
`other lesions. (Id.) The physician introduces the treatment device into the patient’s
`vascular system through the groin or wrist and advances it to the site of a blockage
`
`to perform a procedure—such as the inflation of a balloon or the placement of a
`stent—to relieve the blockage and restore blood flow. (Id.) Often, to create a
`passage for such treatment devices, physicians insert a “guide catheter” earlier in
`the procedure. (Id.) In coronary interventions, this guide catheter typically runs
`from the groin or wrist to one of the coronary ostia (two openings in the aorta that
`
`open into the coronary arteries), but is too wide for advancement beyond either
`coronary ostium. (Id.) The ‘413 patent is directed to methods for delivering an
`apparatus through a standard guide catheter for extension beyond the ostium to
`provide back up support—i.e., to prevent the guide catheter from being dislodged
`during the procedure. (See id., 2:45-49.)
`B. Overview of United States Patent No. 8,142,413
`9.
`The ‘413 patent, filed as U.S. App. Serial No. 12/824,734 on May 3,
`
`2006, is entitled “Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 57
`
`Procedures,” and includes 14 method claims (Exh. 1001). For purposes of this
`
`declaration only, I have been asked to assume that the priority date of the ‘413
`
`patent is May 3, 2006, the filing date of the ‘032 patent.
`10. The specification of the ‘413 patent describes it as relating “generally
`
`to catheters used in interventional cardiology procedures,” and “[m]ore
`
`particularly, ... apparatus for increasing backup support for catheters inserted into
`
`the coronary arteries of the aorta.” (Exh. 1001, 1:13-17.)
`11. The full text of independent claim 1 of the ‘413 patent is set forth
`
`below:
`1. A method of providing backup support for an interventional
`cardiology device for use in the coronary vasculature, the
`interventional cardiology device being adapted to be passed
`through a standard guide catheter, the standard guide catheter
`having a continuous lumen extending for a predefined length
`from a proximal end at a hemostatic valve to a distal end adapted
`to be placed in a branch artery, the continuous lumen of the
`guide catheter having a circular cross sectional inner diameter
`sized such that interventional cardiology devices are insertable
`into and through the lumen, the method comprising:
`
`inserting the standard guide catheter into a first artery over a
`guidewire, the standard guide catheter having a distal end;
`
`positioning the distal end of the standard guide catheter in a
`branch artery that branches off from the first artery;
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 57
`
`inserting a flexible tip portion of a coaxial guide catheter
`defining a tubular structure having a circular cross-section and a
`length that is shorter than the predefined length of the continuous
`lumen of the standard guide catheter, into the continuous lumen
`of the standard guide catheter, and,
`
`further inserting a substantially rigid portion that is proximal of,
`operably connected to, and more rigid along a longitudinal axis
`than the flexible tip portion, into the continuous lumen of the
`standard guide catheter, the substantially rigid portion defining a
`rail structure without a lumen and having a maximal cross-
`sectional dimension at a proximal portion that is smaller than the
`cross-sectional outer diameter of the flexible tip portion and
`having a length that, when combined with the length of the
`flexible distal tip portion, defines a total length of the device
`along the longitudinal axis that is longer than the length of the
`continuous lumen of the guide catheter;
`
`advancing a distal portion of the flexible tip portion distally
`beyond the distal end of the standard guide catheter and into the
`second artery such that the distal portion extends into the second
`artery and such that at least a portion of the proximal portion of
`the substantially rigid portion extends proximally through the
`hemostatic valve; and
`
`inserting the interventional cardiology device into and through
`the continuous lumen of the standard guide catheter alongside of
`the substantially rigid portion and advancing the interventional
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 57
`
`cardiology device through and beyond a lumen of the flexible tip
`portion into contact with or past a lesion in the second artery.
`
`12. Claim 4 (which depends from claim 1) adds the step of “selecting the
`
`substantially rigid portion of the coaxial guide catheter such that it comprises a
`
`cylindrical portion and a partially cylindrical portion defining an opening along a
`
`side thereof.”
`13. Claim 9 (which depends from claim 1) adds the step of “extending the
`
`interventional cardiology device through a proximal side opening defined by the
`
`proximal portion of the tubular structure and extending for a distance along the
`
`longitudinal axis of the proximal portion of the tubular structure while the
`
`proximal portion remains within the lumen of the guide catheter.”
`14. Claim 10 (which depends from claim 9) adds the steps of “extending
`
`the interventional cardiology device through the proximal side opening; advancing
`
`the interventional cardiology device through structure defining a full circumference
`
`portion; and advancing the interventional cardiology device through structure
`
`defining a partially cylindrical portion.”
`15. Claim 13 (which depends from claim 1) adds the step of “selecting the
`
`cross-sectional inner diameter of the coaxial lumen of the tubular structure to be
`
`not more than one French smaller than the cross-sectional inner diameter of the
`
`guide catheter.”
`
`C. Background of Art
`16. The Field of the Invention “relates generally to catheters used in
`
`interventional cardiology procedures,” and “[m]ore particularly ... apparatus for
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 57
`
`increasing backup support for catheters inserted into the coronary arteries from the
`
`aorta.” (Exh. 1001, 1:13-17.) The specification of the ‘413 patent admits that
`
`inserting an inner guide catheter device within and through a standard guide
`
`catheter (coaxially) to provide backup support during interventional cardiology
`
`procedures was not new at the time of the ‘413 patent. Moreover, by the filing date
`
`of ‘032 patent, the priority date of the ‘413 patent, existing catheter technology
`
`routinely employed shortened flexible distal tubes for the receipt of an
`
`interventional cardiology device known as a guidewire. The design of the proximal
`
`opening in such catheters was angled or “skived.”
`17. Broadly speaking, there were two basic catheter designs available by
`
`2006: “over the wire” catheters and “rapid exchange” (or “monorail”) catheters. In
`
`an over the wire catheter, the guide wire remains inside the catheter for the entire
`
`length of the catheter as depicted in the image below:
`
`Guidewire
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In contrast, a rapid exchange catheter is delivered over a guidewire,
`
`but the flexible tube that defines the device’s guidewire lumen is shorter than the
`
`full length of the catheter and passes over only part of the wire. The below image
`
`depicts a rapid exchange catheter, showing the guidewire inside the catheter for
`
`only a portion of the catheter’s length. I understand that both of these illustrations
`
`were used in the declaration of named inventor Howard Root that was submitted
`
`on behalf of the Patent Owner in the pending litigation. (Exh. 1024, 11-12.)
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
`Guidewire
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In using over the wire catheters, physicians must rely on an assistant
`
`to help them deliver the guidewire—since it must be long enough to run the entire
`
`length of both catheters. Rapid exchange catheters were, therefore, considered
`
`advantageous because their shortened guidewire lumen permitted the use of shorter
`
`guidewires for more efficient delivery and exchange.
`20. There were countless disclosures of skived proximal openings existing
`
`in the art prior to the filing of the ‘032 patent, particularly due to the prevalence of
`
`such teachings in rapid exchange balloon catheter patents and publications. A few
`
`prior art disclosures that are demonstrative of the pervasiveness of such teachings
`
`in the art include: U.S. Patent No. 5,690,613 (“Verbeek”) (Exh. 1018) directed to
`
`“a shaft transition section for a rapid exchange high pressure balloon catheter”
`
`wherein the proximal portion of the guidewire lumen is skived at an angle.
`
`Verbeek expressly teaches to: “Skive 95 the proximal end of the inner lumen
`tubing 70 at an angle of approximately 10 degrees for a length of 2mm.” (Id., 1:6-
`9, 6:9-11.)
`21.
`
`In 1990, U.S. Patent No. 5,102,403 (“Alt”) (Exh. 1020) also disclosed
`
`a catheter “of the type riding on a guide wire only at a short distal end portion”
`(Id., 2:63-65), including an express disclosure and clear depiction of a proximal
`side opening having both full circumference and hemicylindrical portions through
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 57
`
`which a guidewire is received. (Id. at Figs. 4, 7.) Alt was directed to a catheter that
`includes an outer wall that changes gradually while passing through successive
`
`configurations at the more distal end. The substantially cylindrical outer wall
`
`becomes grooved to guide a guide wire alongside toward the interior of the
`
`catheter without any significant bending of the wire. This groove becomes a
`
`crescent-shaped wall-lumina configuration which partially encompasses the guide
`wire before becoming cylindrical to surround the guide wire. (Id.)
`22. A similarly gradual guidewire transition design was also described in
`
`1990 by Keith (U.S. Patent No. 5,156,594) (Exh. 1019), which incorporated
`
`hypodermic needle tubing to improve pushing forces. The Keith patent focused on
`
`improving the transition zone at the proximal guide wire lumen opening by
`
`incorporating a metallic tube formed into a crescent shape connected to a metallic
`spring. (Id., 3:59-4:52.)
`23.
`Indeed, as early as 1987, in an article by Dr. Tasilo Bonzel—
`
`submitted by Patent Owner in the ongoing litigation as an exhibit to the
`
`Declaration of Howard Root (a named inventor of the ‘413 patent)—there is a clear
`
`depiction of a skived proximal opening to a lumen for the receipt of a guidewire.
`
`(Exh. 1024 at Exhibit 1 thereto.)
`24. As such, replacing the use of a full length catheter with a skived short
`
`distal guidewire lumen tube segment was well known in the art well before the
`‘413 patent as a standard feature of rapid exchange catheters. See also, Carillo Jr.
`(Exh. 1036, at least Figures 1A-E show a catheter having proximal side opening
`
`defining a full circumference portion and a partially cylindrical portion );
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 57
`
`Schneider, Inc., Product Brochure for Monorail® GEXTM (Exh. 1037, Figure
`depicts side opening), Wahr et al. (Exh. 1038, [105] (“The distal and proximal
`ends of the expanded evacuation head 232 may be angled relative to its
`
`longitudinal axis...”);; Claim 145 (“An evacuation sheath assembly, comprising: an
`
`elongated tube defining an evacuation lumen having open proximal and distal ends
`
`...wherein the open proximal end of the evacuation lumen is angled.”), and
`Buchbinder et al. (Exh. 1041, Fig. 4 shows a catheter with a proximal opening of
`the guide wire lumen cut at an angle or skived.)
`25. Even outside of rapid exchange, skiving was well known in the art as,
`
`from a manufacturing standpoint, one of the most basic and efficient designs for
`
`crafting an opening in the lumen of a catheter, and a common technique for
`
`controlling the flexibility of a device in areas where breakage or kinking were
`likely to occur. See, e.g., Kucklick, Theodore R., Medical Device R and D
`Handbook (Nov. 21, 2005) (Exh. 1021, at p. 117).
`
`III. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`26.
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`level of skill in the art include the level of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology.
`27.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ‘032 patent, the priority date of the ‘413 patent
`
`would have been someone with at least the equivalent of a medical degree from an
`
`accredited institution (usually denoted in this country as a M.D. degree) or
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 57
`
`someone with the equivalent of a masters degree from an accredited institution
`
`(usually denoted in this country as an M.S. degree) in biomedical engineering. The
`
`person must have at least three years of experience working as an interventional
`
`cardiologist, interventional radiologist, cardiothoracic surgeon, interventionalist, or
`
`biomedical engineer or biomedical device designer and/or manufacturer. Extensive
`
`experience and technical training might substitute for educational requirements,
`
`while advanced degrees might substitute for experience.
`28. A POSA would have a detailed understanding of the prior art, would
`
`have been able to draw inferences from the prior art, and would have had the
`
`ability to identify optimal combinations of device shapes and configurations found
`
`in the prior art for a particular application.
`29.
`
`In 2006, I would have exceeded the level of skill required, and I am in
`
`a position to opine on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. Summary of Prior Art References
`30.
`I have evaluated references in connection with this proceeding that
`
`address the elements of the claims of the ‘413 patent. All cited references fall in
`
`the field of art of the invention (interventional cardiology procedures) (Exh. 1001,
`
`1:44-49), or are reasonably pertinent to such art. They are also directed to the same
`
`problems that the elements of the claimed invention address. A summary of the
`
`references and the elements to which the references apply follows.
`31. U.S. Patent No. 5,527,292 to Adams (“Adams ‘292”) (Exh. 1013) is
`
`directed to “the structure and use of a distal extension (intravascular device) for a
`guide catheter,” (Exh. 1013, 4:35-38), and discloses, inter alia: “[a]n intravascular
` 15
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 57
`
`device having an elongated flexible tube sized for insertion into a coronary vessel
`
`beyond a distal end of a guide catheter. In use, the flexible tube has its proximal
`
`end within a guide catheter and has its distal end extending to a treatment site in a
`
`coronary artery. The device also including a push rod attached to a proximal end of
`
`the flexible tube to facilitate placement of the flexible tube within the coronary
`artery requiring treatment.” (Id., Abstract.) Adams ‘292 describes that a benefit of
`its disclosed device is the ability to extend the flexible tube beyond the distal tip of
`
`the guide catheter so that it is seated deep enough beyond the ostium to anchor the
`
`position of the guide catheter during treatment: “A proximal end of the flexible
`
`tube 32 is advanced so that a significant portion of the flexible tube 32 extends into
`
`the artery beyond the distal end of the guide catheter 12 to secure the guide
`
`catheter 12 at the coronary ostium for guiding a coronary treatment device into the
`arteries beyond….” (Id., 9:12-24.)
`32.
`I have been informed by counsel that Adams ‘292 is prior art to the
`
`ʼ413 patent under §102(b) because it was published and patented more than one
`
`year prior to the May 6, 2006 filing date of the ʼ032 patent, the earliest priority
`
`date of the ‘413 patent. Adams ‘292 teaches all of the elements of independent
`
`claim 1 and dependent claim 13, as well as portions of dependent claims 4, 9, and
`
`10. Adams ‘292 also provides substantial disclosure of the “not more than one
`
`French” range limitations of dependent claim 13.
`33. U.S. Patent No. 5,776,141 to Klein (“Klein”) (Exh. 1014) is directed
`
`to a delivery catheter having a tubular catheter body with a skived proximal
`
`opening sized to receive a balloon catheter. I have been informed by counsel that
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 57
`
`Klein is prior art to the ʼ413 patent under §102(b) because it was published and
`
`patented more than one year prior to the May 6, 2006 filing date of the ʼ032 patent,
`
`the earliest priority date of the ‘413 patent. Klein generally teaches the proximal
`
`side opening elements of challenged dependent claims 4, and 10, as well as
`
`portions of each of the other elements of independent claim 1.
`34. U.S. Patent No. 7,232,452 to Adams (“Adams ‘452”) (Exh. 1015) is
`
`directed to a guide seal that “comprises an elongate body defining an interior
`
`cavity which, when deployed in a vessel, is large enough to allow passage of a
`catheter used to deliver … an expandable filter or balloon.” (Id., 8:47-50.) The
`proximal opening of the guide seal 20 is skived or cut at an angle, forming an
`
`opening that extends for a distance along the longitudinal axis and which is
`
`accessible from a side transverse to the longitudinal axis. The guide seal 20
`
`receives an interventional device (the delivery catheter 17 while the proximal
`portion of the guide seal 20 remains within the lumen of the guide catheter 10. (Id.,
`Id., Fig. 2C.) I have been informed by counsel that Adams ‘452 is prior art to the
`ʼ413 patent under §102(b) because it was published and patented more than one
`
`year prior to the May 6, 2006 filing date of the ʼ032 patent, the earliest priority
`
`date of the ‘413 patent. Adams ‘452 generally teaches the proximal side opening
`
`elements of challenged dependent claims 4 and 10, as well as portions of each of
`
`the other elements of independent claim 1.
`35. U.S. Patent No. 5,328,472 to Steinke (“Steinke”) (Exh. 1016) is
`
`directed to “a catheter which allows rapid exchange” where the proximal end of the
`
`inner lumen tubing is skived at an angle, forming an opening that extends for a
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 57
`
`distance along the longitudinal axis and which is accessible from a side transverse
`to the longitudinal axis. (Id., 3:1-2.) I have been informed by counsel that Steinke
`is prior art to the ʼ413 patent under §102(b) because it was published and patented
`
`more than one year prior to the May 6, 2006 filing date of the ʼ032 patent, the
`
`earliest priority date of the ‘413 patent. Steinke generally teaches the proximal side
`
`opening elements of challenged dependent claims 4 and 10, as well as portions of
`
`each of the other elements of independent claim 1.
`36. Takahashi, New Method to Increase Backup Support of a 6 French
`
`Guiding Coronary Catheter, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
`
`63:452-456 (2004) (“Takahashi”) (Ex. 1017) is directed to a method for deep-
`
`seating a guide catheter beyond the ostium for purposes of providing backup
`
`support during interventional cardiology procedures. I have been informed by
`
`counsel that Takahashi is prior art to the ʼ032 patent under §102(b) because it was
`
`published more than one year prior to the May 6, 2006 filing date of the ʼ032
`
`patent, the earliest priority date of the ‘413 patent. The method disclosed by
`
`Takahashi involves the insertion of a 5 French guide catheter extension through a 6
`
`French guide catheter, whereby the resulting difference in diameters is not more
`
`than one French. Accordingly, this disclosure of Takahashi is within the claimed
`
`range of dependent claim 13.
`
`V.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`37. A number of prior art references, including those discussed below,
`
`show that the various claim elements of the ‘413 patent were well known both
`
`individually and in combination in the prior art. To the extent that any of the claim
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 57
`
`limitations are not explicitly disclosed in one reference, such limitations could be
`
`found by one of ordinary skill in one or more of the other references. As such, in
`
`my opinion, the asserted claims would have been in the possession of or obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art from the disclosures in one or more of certain prior
`art references.
`A. Claims 1 and 13 are anticipated in view of Adams ‘292 under
`§ 102(b)
`It is my opinion that each of independent claim 1 and dependent
`
`38.
`
`claim 13 are invalid as anticipated under § 102(b) over Adams ‘292. I address each
`
`element of those claims in Paragraphs 92-108 of this Declaration.
`39. The Adams ‘292 reference is analogous art to the ‘413 patent at least
`
`because it is within the same field of endeavor as the invention of the ‘413 patent
`
`or was acknowledged by the Patent Owner to be in an analogous field. Further, the
`
`Adams ‘292 is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the ‘413 patent
`
`claims. I address the issue of analogous art in Paragraphs 71-72.
`
`B. Claims 1, 4, 9 and 10 obvious over Adams ‘292 In View Of The
`Knowledge of One of Skill In The Art
`It is my opinion that each of claims 1,4, 9, and 10 are invalid as
`
`40.
`
`obvious under § 103(a) over Adams ‘292 in further view of Klein. I address each
`
`element of those claims in Paragraphs 109-110 of this Declaration..
`41. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`
`Adams ‘292 in view of that which was well known in the art to achieve the alleged
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 57
`
`inventions of the ‘413 patent. The issue of motivation is addressed in Paragraphs
`
`89-91 and 109-10. I address the relevant level of skill in Paragraphs 27-29.
`
`C. Claims1, 4, 9, 10 and 13 are rendered obvious under § 103(a) over
`Adams ‘292 in view of Klein
`It is my opinion that each of claims 1,4, 9, 10 and 13 are invalid as
`
`42.
`
`obvious under § 103(a) over Adams ‘292 in further view of Klein. I address each
`
`element of those claims in Paragraphs 111-114 of this Declaration.
`43. The Klein reference is analogous art to the ‘413 patent in that it falls
`
`within the same field of endeavor as the invention of the ‘413 patent. Further, the
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent to the alleged problem addressed by the ‘413
`
`patent. I address the issue of analogous art in Paragraphs 75-77.
`44. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`
`Adams ‘292 with the teachings of Klein to achieve the alleged inventions of the
`
`‘413 patent. The issue of combinability is addressed in Paragraphs 89-91 and 109-
`
`10.
`
`D. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10 and 13 are rendered obvious under § 103(a) over
`Adams ‘292 in view of Adams ‘452
`It is my opinion that each of claims 1, 4, 9, 10 and 13 are invalid as
`
`45.
`
`obvious under § 103(a) over Adams ‘292 in further view of Adams ‘452. I address
`
`each element of those claims in Paragraphs 115-18 of this Declaration.
`46. The Adams ‘452 reference is analogous art to the ‘413 patent in that it
`
`falls within the same field of endeavor as the invention of the ‘413 patent. Further,
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 57
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the alleged problem addressed by the ‘413
`
`patent. I address the issue of analogous art in Paragraphs 78-79.
`47. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`
`Adams ‘292 with the teachings of Adams ‘452 to achieve the alleged inventions of
`
`the ‘413 patent. The issue of combinability is addressed in Paragraphs 89-91 and
`
`109-10.
`
`E. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10 and 13 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over
`Adams ‘292 In Vi