`
`Patent No. 6,205,411
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`Mako Surgical Corp.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Blue Belt Technologies, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,205,411
`Issue Date: March 20, 2001
`Title: COMPUTER-ASSISTED SURGERY PLANNER AND
`INTRA-OPERATIVE GUIDANCE SYSTEM
`______________________
`
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT D. HOWE
`
`1
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Morrison & Foerster LLP in this case as an
`
`expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I
`
`have reviewed in this case related to U.S. Patent No. 6,205,411 (“the ’411 patent”
`
`(Ex. 1001)) and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding the same subject
`
`matter as the ’411 patent before and at the earliest effective filing date of
`
`November 12, 1998.
`
`3. My opinions and underlying reasoning for the opinions are set forth
`
`below.
`
`II.
`
`4.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`I am currently the Abbott and James Lawrence Professor of
`
`Engineering at Harvard University. I also serve as Area Dean (equivalent to
`
`Department Chair) of Bioengineering. I am the director of the BioRobotics
`
`Laboratory at Harvard University, which is the home to over a dozen doctoral
`
`students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scholars. Our research focuses on
`
`robotics, particularly robotic manipulation and robot-assisted surgery. Among
`
`other projects, we have developed image-guided and minimally invasive surgical
`
`robot systems. Our work has been funded by government grants, private
`
`foundations, and commercial partners.
`
`2
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I earned a bachelor’s degree in physics from Reed College in 1979
`
`and Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1987 and 1990, respectively.
`
`6. My work has resulted in over four issued patents, six patent
`
`applications, and approximately 200 peer-reviewed publications.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae that summarizes my education, work
`
`history, and publications is in Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $395/hour for taking part in this
`
`case but have no other relationship to Mako Surgical Corp. My compensation is
`
`not dependent on the outcome of this case.
`
`III. BASIS FOR OPINION
`
`9. My opinions and views set forth in this report are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the relevant field, as well as the materials I
`
`reviewed in this case, and the scientific knowledge regarding the same subject
`
`matter that existed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’411 patent.
`
`IV. PATENT LAW STANDARD
`
`10.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid for anticipation if
`
`it can be shown that each and every limitation of the claim is disclosed either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`3
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 3
`
`
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid for obviousness if
`
`the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the invention was made, in view of a single prior art reference
`
`or a combination of prior art references. Specifically, I understand that a
`
`determination of whether a claimed invention would have been obvious requires
`
`taking into consideration factors which include: (a) assessing the scope and content
`
`of the prior art; (b) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art;
`
`and (c) the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that when combining two or more references,
`
`or when modifying an item disclosed in one reference, so as to arrive at a claimed
`
`invention, one should consider whether there is a reason for the proposed
`
`combination or modification. For example, when a technology or product is
`
`available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. For the same
`
`reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`
`beyond his or her skill.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that the claims of a patent are analyzed from
`
`the perspective of “a person of ordinary skill in the art” and that the claims of the
`
`4
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 4
`
`
`
`’411 patent are interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood them at the time the ’093 application, which issued as the ’411 patent,
`
`was filed. It is further my understanding that a claim is given the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification” in inter partes review. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that “prior art” includes patents and
`
`publications in the relevant literature and information that predate the effective
`
`priority date of the ’411 patent. It is also my understanding that priority is
`
`determined on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent application can disclose prior
`
`technologies as prior art in its specification, and the admitted prior information can
`
`be used as “prior art” against its claims.
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`16. A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’411 patent would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical, electrical, or biomedical
`
`engineering or computer science and at least five years of experience developing or
`
`researching image-guided medical devices and procedures or surgical robotics.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
`
`17. The ’411 patent is directed to systems and methods for facilitating
`
`implantation of an artificial component in a hip joint, knee joint, hand and wrist
`
`5
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 5
`
`
`
`joint, elbow joint, shoulder joint, or foot and ankle joint. The apparatus and related
`
`method consist of essentially two pieces: a pre-operative geometric planner, and a
`
`pre-operative kinematic biomechanical simulator that communicates with the
`
`geometric planner.
`
`18. The ’411’s claimed systems and methods, however, were not new
`
`when the ’411 patent was filed. Rather, they were disclosed in articles published
`
`well before what I am informed is the earliest effective filing date to which the
`
`’411 patent is entitled.
`
`19. At least as early as 1996, authors A.M. DiGioia III, D.A. Simon, B.
`
`Jaramaz, M. Blackwell, F. Morgan, R.V. O’Toole, B. Colgan, and E. Kischell
`
`published HipNav: Pre-operative Planning and Intra-operative Navigational
`
`Guidance for Acetabular Implant Placement in Total Hip Replacement Surgery,
`
`2nd CAOS Symposium, 1996 (“DiGioia”) (Ex. 1005). DiGioia describes in detail
`
`the exact systems and methods that were then claimed two years later in the ’411
`
`patent.
`
`20. DiGioia discusses a system and methods to determine optimal implant
`
`placement during hip replacement surgery through the use of pre-operative
`
`planning, a range of motion simulator, and intra-operative navigational tracking
`
`and guidance. It describes that a common problem causing complications after hip
`
`replacement surgery is poor positioning of the implant. The DiGioia system,
`
`6
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 6
`
`
`
`called HipNav, allowed the surgeon to specify a component position, after which
`
`the range of motion simulator would estimate femoral range of motion based on
`
`parameters provided by the pre-operative planner. The feedback from the
`
`simulator would allow the surgeon to determine patient-specific optimal implant
`
`placement. The intra-operative tracking and guidance helps place the implant in
`
`that optimal position, regardless of the position of the patient on the operating
`
`table.
`
`21. Even earlier, at least as early as 1995, Anthony M. DiGioia III,
`
`Branislav Jaramaz, and Robert V. O’Toole III published “An Integrated Approach
`
`to Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery in Orthopedics,” Proc. 1st
`
`Int’l Symp. on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, pp. 106−111,
`
`1995 (“DiGioia II”) (Ex. 1006). DiGioia II describes the same system at a higher
`
`level, and discloses most claims of the ’411 patent nearly four years before the
`
`’411 patent was filed. The claims that were not precisely disclosed in 1995 are
`
`merely obvious variations of what was disclosed, particularly in light of well-
`
`known publications at the time and the knowledge of one of skill in the art.
`
`VII. THE ’411 PATENT
`
`22. The ’411 patent includes three independent claims and 14 dependent
`
`claims. The independent claims recite:
`
`1. An apparatus for facilitating the implantation of an
`artificial component in one of a hip joint, a knee joint, a
`
`7
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 7
`
`
`
`hand and wrist joint, an elbow joint, a shoulder joint, and
`a foot and ankle joint, comprising:
`
`a pre-operative geometric planner; and
`
`a pre-operative kinematic biomechanical simulator in
`communication with said pre-operative geometric
`planner wherein said pre-operative geometric planner
`outputs at least one geometric model of the joint and the
`pre-operative kinematic biomechanical simulator outputs
`a position for implantation of the artificial component.
`
`10. A system for facilitating an implant position for at
`least one artificial component in one of a hip joint, a knee
`joint, a hand and wrist joint, an elbow joint, a shoulder
`joint, and a foot and ankle joint, comprising:
`
`a computer system including;
`
`a pre-operative geometric planner; and
`
`a pre-operative kinematic biomechanical simulator in
`communication with said pre-operative geometric
`planner wherein pre-operative geometric planner outputs
`at least one geometric model of the joint and the pre-
`operative kinematic biomechanical simulator outputs a
`position for implantation of the artificial component; and
`
`a tracking device in communication with said computer
`system.
`
`17. A computerized method of facilitating the
`implantation of an artificial implant in one of a hip joint,
`a knee joint, a hand and wrist joint, an elbow joint, a
`shoulder joint, and a foot and ankle joint, comprising:
`
`creating a three dimensional bone model based on
`skeletal geometric data of a bone and a bony cavity into
`which the artificial implant is to be implanted;
`
`creating a three dimensional component model of the
`artificial implant;
`
`8
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 8
`
`
`
`simulating movement of the joint with the artificial
`implant in a test position;
`
`calculating a range of motion of the artificial implant and
`the bones comprising the joint for the test position based
`on the simulated movement;
`
`determining an implant position based on a
`predetermined range of motion and the calculated range
`of motion;
`
`identifying the implant position in the bone model;
`
`aligning the bone model with the patient’s bone and
`placing the implant based on positional tracking data
`providing the position of the implant and the bone; and
`
`tracking the implant and the bone to maintain alignment
`of the bone model and to determine the position of the
`implant relative to the bone.
`
`23. Dependent claims 2 and 15 add an intra-operative navigational
`
`module in communication with the pre-operative kinematic biomechanical
`
`simulator. Dependent claim 3 further adds a tracking device in communication
`
`with the intra-operative navigational module. Dependent claim 4 specifies that the
`
`pre-operative geometric planner is responsive to a skeletal data source. Dependent
`
`claim 5 adds further that the skeletal data source includes geometric data.
`
`Dependent claim 6 specifies that the pre-operative geometric planner outputs at
`
`least one geometric model of the component, and dependent claim 7 adds that the
`
`simulator is responsive to the geometric model and outputs an implant position.
`
`Dependent claim 8 specifies further that the implant position includes angular
`
`9
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 9
`
`
`
`component orientation. Dependent claim 9 adds a list of potential tracking devices
`
`for claim 3. Dependent claims 11 through 14 add additional elements to claim 10:
`
`a display monitor; a controller; a camera; and a tracking device that includes at
`
`least one target, respectively. Dependent claim 16 adds a robotic device in
`
`communication with the computer system and a surgical tool connected to the
`
`robotic device.
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART
`
`24. Following are brief summaries of the prior art references applied
`
`against the claims of the ’411 patent in this declaration.
`
`A.M. DiGioia et al., “HipNav: Pre-operative Planning and Intra-operative
`
`Navigational Guidance for Acetabular Implant Placement in Total Hip
`
`Replacement Surgery,” 2nd CAOS Symposium, 1996 (“DiGioia”) (Ex.
`
`1005).
`
`25. DiGioia is an article published at least as early as 1996. (See Ex. 1005
`
`at 1.) DiGioia discusses a system and methods to determine optimal implant
`
`placement during hip replacement surgery through the use of pre-operative
`
`planning, a range of motion simulator, and intra-operative navigational tracking
`
`and guidance. It describes that a common problem causing complications after hip
`
`replacement surgery is poor positioning of the implant. The DiGioia system,
`
`called HipNav, allowed the surgeon to specify a component position, after which
`
`10
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 10
`
`
`
`the range of motion simulator would estimate femoral range of motion based on
`
`parameters provided by the pre-operative planner. The feedback from the
`
`simulator would allow the surgeon to determine patient-specific optimal implant
`
`placement. The intra-operative tracking and guidance helps place the implant in
`
`that optimal position, regardless of the position of the patient on the operating
`
`table.
`
`26. DiGioia discloses: (1) a computer system for facilitating
`
`implantation of an artificial component in one of the specified joint types (Ex.
`
`1005 at 1 (“[S]ystem allows a surgeon to determine optimal patient specific
`
`acetabular implant placement and accurately achieve the desired acetabular implant
`
`placement during surgery.”)) with (2) a pre-operative geometric planner (id. at 2
`
`(“[P]re-operative planner allows the surgeon to manually specify the position of
`
`the acetabular component within the pelvis based upon pre-operative CT images,”
`
`and is therefore geometric)) and (3) a pre-operative kinematic biomechanical
`
`simulator in communication with the geometric planner (id. at Fig. 3 (depicting
`
`range of motion simulator with arrows illustrating communication between
`
`simulator and planner)), where (4) the geometric planner outputs a geometric
`
`model of the joint (id. at 2 (simulator receives from pre-operative planner implant
`
`placement parameters, which are necessarily based upon and described relative to
`
`geometric model of joint)), and (5) a tracking device communicating with the
`
`11
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 11
`
`
`
`computer system (id. at 4 (intra-operative system includes Optotrak optical
`
`tracking camera capable of tracking special LEDs)).
`
`27. DiGioia also discloses a computerized method (1) for facilitating
`
`implantation of an artificial implant in one of the specified joint types
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 1), comprising (2) creating a three-dimensional bone model (id. at
`
`2-3, Fig. 8 (system uses pelvic surface model constructed from CT data using
`
`techniques discussed in three-dimensional modeling article)), (3) creating a three-
`
`dimensional component model (id. at Fig. 4 (depicting positioning of implant
`
`component across three orthogonal views of pelvis)), (4) simulating movement of
`
`the joint with the artificial implant in a test position (id. at 2 (discussing range
`
`of motion simulator)), (5) calculating a range of motion (id. at 3-4 (simulator
`
`performs kinematic analysis to determine envelope of safe range of motion)), (6)
`
`identifying the implant position in the bone model (id. at 3 (surgeon can
`
`position cross sections of implant upon orthogonal view of pelvis)), (7) aligning
`
`the bone model with the bone based on tracking data (id. at 5 (disclosing
`
`registration process to align position of patient to pre-operative plan)), and (8)
`
`tracking the implant and bone to maintain alignment and determine the
`
`position of the implant relative to the bone (id. at 5-7 (discussing tracking of
`
`implant and bone and use of navigational feedback)).
`
`12
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 12
`
`
`
`Anthony M. DiGioia III et al., “An Integrated Approach to Medical Robotics
`
`and Computer Assisted Surgery in Orthopedics,” Proc. 1st Int’l Symp. on
`
`Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, pp. 106−111, 1995
`
`(“DiGioia II”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`28. DiGioia II is an article published at least as early as 1995. Much like
`
`DiGioia, DiGioia II describes systems and methods to improve accuracy of joint
`
`replacements through the use of pre-operative planning and computer systems.
`
`DiGioia proposes a pre-operative planning component. DiGioia II discloses use of
`
`what could be construed as a simulator to determine optimal implant positioning.
`
`It describes that if biomechanics-based preoperative planning is linked with patient
`
`and pre-determined implant data, as well as a computer or robot monitoring and
`
`assisting the surgery, surgical results could be improved. A main figure in the
`
`article, Figure 1, displays the combined system, indicating with arrows
`
`communication between the various components.
`
`29. Like the ’411 patent and the DiGioia reference discussed above,
`
`DiGioia II discloses an approach to improved surgical techniques incorporating
`
`pre-operative planning with biomechanical analysis and computer or robot-assisted
`
`surgery. (Ex. 1006 at 3.) Like the system disclosed in the ’411’s independent
`
`system claims 1 and 10, DiGioia II discloses a computer system (1) for facilitating
`
`implantation of an artificial component in one of the specified joint types
`
`13
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 13
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1 (depicting cup and femoral implants)) with (2) a pre-operative
`
`geometric planner (id. (depicting “Biomechanics-based Preoperative Planning”
`
`portion of system with “3-D Templating”)); where (3) the geometric planner
`
`outputs a geometric model of the joint (id. (depicting that 3-D templating
`
`subsystem of pre-operative planner outputs geometric model of bones to
`
`biomechanical analyzer subsystem)); and (4) the biomechanical simulator
`
`outputs a position for implantation of the artificial component (id. at 108-09
`
`(stating that “the simulation may help indicate an ‘optimal’ bone cavity shape and
`
`implant location”); Fig. 1 (depicting return arrow from biomechanical analyzer
`
`subsystem, indicating that shape and location is being output back to planner)).
`
`30. DiGioia II also discloses what could be construed as a pre-operative
`
`kinematic biomechanical simulator in communication with the geometric planner
`
`(Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1 (depicting biomechanical analysis system, shown to be in
`
`communication with geometric planner via arrows); id. at 107 (stating system will
`
`“provide the surgeon with feedback concerning the distribution of strain in the
`
`bone, and the amount of bone-implant contact for a given surgical plan” and
`
`consider “bone remodeling effects due to joint loading and varying load transfer
`
`mechanisms,” which relates to movement and is therefore a kinematic
`
`biomechanical simulator)). Moreover, even if one does not consider this system to
`
`be a simulator within the meaning of the ’411 specification and file history, such
`
`14
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 14
`
`
`
`simulators were well-known in the art at the relevant time, as discussed in more
`
`detail below, and it would have been obvious to combine such a simulator with the
`
`system described in DiGioia II.
`
`31. Similarly, like the method disclosed in the ’411’s independent method
`
`claim 17, DiGioia II discloses a computerized method (1) for facilitating
`
`implantation of an artificial implant in one of the specified joint types
`
`(Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1 (depicting computer and robotic surgical system for performing
`
`hip replacement surgeries)), comprising (2) creating a three-dimensional bone
`
`model (id. (depicting software that utilizes radiological imaging data to generate 3-
`
`D skeleton models as well as database of implant models, which are provided to
`
`planning software that generates 3-D templates from models which then allow
`
`biomechanical simulator to evaluate selected implant position); Fig. 2 (depicting
`
`bone model, implant model, and bony cavity into which implant model is
`
`implanted)), (3) creating a three-dimensional component model (id. at Fig. 1
`
`(depicting computer with implant database used to generate 3-D model of
`
`implant)), and (4) identifying the implant position in the bone model (id. at Fig.
`
`2 (depicting implant position in cavity of bone model)). As noted above, DiGioia
`
`II also could be construed to disclose simulating movement of the joint with the
`
`artificial implant in a test position (id. at 107 (describing biomechanical analysis
`
`system that will “provide the surgeon with feedback concerning the distribution of
`
`15
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 15
`
`
`
`strain in the bone, and the amount of bone-implant contact for a given surgical
`
`plan” and consider “bone remodeling effects due to joint loading and varying load
`
`transfer mechanisms,” which relate to movement and are therefore a kinematic
`
`biomechanical simulator)), and in any event, such simulating was well-known in
`
`the art at the relevant time, as discussed in more detail below.
`
`E.Y.S. Chao et al., “Simulation and Animation of Musculoskeletal Joint
`
`System,” Transactactions of the ASME, Vol. 115, pp. 562-568, Nov. 1993
`
`(“Chao”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`32. Chao is an article published in November 1993. Chao addresses the
`
`same subject matter as DiGioia II: simulation and animation of joints. Chao
`
`expresses a desire to allow a user to simulate joint pressure distribution in order to
`
`improve joint replacement, including hip replacements. It discusses numerous
`
`types of simulators. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine DiGioia II with Chao, as Chao was published only
`
`approximately 1-2 years before DiGioia II and addresses the same subject matter
`
`as DiGioia II. Like DiGioia II, Chao addresses simulation and animation of joints.
`
`Also like DiGioia II, Chao expresses a desire to allow a user to simulate joint
`
`pressure distribution in order to improve joint replacement, including hip
`
`replacements.
`
`16
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 16
`
`
`
`R.V. O’Toole III et al., “Towards More Capable and Less Invasive Robotic
`
`Surgery in Orthopaedics,” Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in
`
`Medicine Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 905, pp. 123-130, 1995
`
`(“O’Toole”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`33. O’Toole is an article published in 1995. O’Toole describes a system
`
`for planning a hip surgery involving a femoral implant and a femur and shares
`
`most of its authors with DiGioia II. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated
`
`to combine DiGioia II with O’Toole, as O’Toole also describes a system for
`
`planning a hip surgery involving a femoral implant and a femur and shares most of
`
`its authors with DiGioia II (including respective lead authors O’Toole and DiGioia
`
`along with four other authors).
`
`Russell H. Taylor et al., An Image-Directed Robotic System for Precise
`
`Orthopaedic Surgery, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation,
`
`Vol. 10, No. 3, June 1994 (“Taylor”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`34. Taylor is an article published June 1994. Taylor describes an “image-
`
`directed robotic system to augment the performance of human surgeons” and
`
`explains that “[o]rthopaedic applications represent a particularly promising domain
`
`for the integration of image and model-based presurgical planning, CAD/CAM
`
`technology, and precise robotic execution.” (Ex. 1009 at 261-62.) The Taylor
`
`system uses 3-D imaging, registration, and tracking of the cutting tool and a
`
`17
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 17
`
`
`
`workpiece, for example a leg or bone, with control based on that data. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would be motivated to combine DiGioia II with Taylor, as Taylor
`
`was well-known in the mid-1990s to those of skill in the art, and like DiGioia II,
`
`Taylor addresses a system to improve accuracy of orthopedic surgery.
`
`IX. VALIDITY
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1-17 of the ’411 patent are anticipated by, or
`
`obvious in view of, the prior art references discussed above separately or in
`
`combination, for the reasons discussed below.
`
`DiGioia
`
`36. Claims 1-17 are obvious in view of DiGioia in light of the knowledge
`
`of one of skill in the art or in combination with DiGioia II. The majority of the
`
`elements in claims 1-17 are literally disclosed in DiGioia. The few elements that
`
`are not literally disclosed are obvious variations of the elements that are disclosed
`
`and are discussed in more detail below.
`
`37. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine DiGioia with DiGioia II. DiGioia II is an earlier article written by
`
`several of the same authors, including of course DiGioia himself. DiGioia II
`
`addresses the same concerns as DiGioia. In many respects, DiGioia II disclosed
`
`the same system discussed in DiGioia, at a higher level and several years before.
`
`18
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 18
`
`
`
`38. Claims 1 and 10 require the use of feedback from a simulator to
`
`output a position for implantation of the artificial component. Similarly, claim 7
`
`requires the simulator to be responsive to the geometric model and output an
`
`implant position. The DiGioia system discloses that feedback from the simulator
`
`can aid the surgeon in determining optimal implant placement. (Ex. 1005 at 2.) It
`
`would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to utilize the feedback as
`
`suggested by DiGioia, re-run the simulation to determine optimal positioning of
`
`the component, and have the simulator output that position. In fact, this is
`
`suggested by Figure 3 in DiGioia, which depicts bi-directional communication
`
`between the pre-operative planner and the range of motion simulator.
`
`39. Claim 9 adds that the tracking device must be selected from the group
`
`consisting of an acoustic tracking system, shape based recognition tracking system,
`
`video-based tracking system, mechanical tracking system, electromagnetic tracking
`
`system and radio frequency tracking system, and claim 13 requires that the
`
`tracking device include at least one camera. DiGioia discloses an Optotrak
`
`camera-based tracking system. (Ex. 1005 at 4.) Even if this was not considered a
`
`video-based tracking system, video-based tracking systems were widely used and
`
`known to those of skill in the art in the mid-1990s, and it would have been obvious
`
`to combine video-based capability with the DiGioia system or substitute a video-
`
`based tracking system for the Optotrak camera system.
`
`19
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 19
`
`
`
`40. Claim 16 adds the requirement of a robotic device and surgical tool.
`
`Although a robotic device with a surgical tool is not explicitly disclosed in
`
`DiGioia, it was explicitly disclosed in DiGioia II. Figure 1 of DiGioia II shows a
`
`ceiling-mounted robotic arm with a surgical tool at the end of the arm. (Ex. 1006
`
`at Fig. 1.) As noted above, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`look to DiGioia II when solving problems addressed by DiGioia, as DiGioia II is
`
`an article addressing the same problems, published by the same authors, just a few
`
`years before the publication of DiGioia. It therefore would have been obvious to
`
`one of skill in the art to combine the robotic device and surgical tool from DiGioia
`
`II with the system discussed in more detail in DiGioia.
`
`41. Claim 17 requires the system to determine an implant position based
`
`on both a pre-determined range of motion and a calculated range of motion.
`
`DiGioia explicitly discloses calculation of a range of motion and states the surgeon
`
`may choose to modify a selected position to achieve optimal implant positioning.
`
`Particularly in light of the suggestion that a surgeon may want to modify the
`
`calculated range of motion, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`determine the ideal modification by taking into account pre-determined functional
`
`needs and the range of motion needed to meet those needs.
`
`42.
`
`I have reviewed the DiGioia claim chart in the petition to be filed with
`
`my declaration and agree with all the statements about the factual findings and
`
`20
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 20
`
`
`
`arguments based on those findings. It is my opinion that the claims of the ’411
`
`patent are anticipated or rendered obvious as set forth in this chart and as
`
`additionally addressed in this declaration.
`
`DiGioia II
`
`43. Claims 1-17 are also anticipated by DiGioia II or obvious in view of
`
`DiGioia II in light of the knowledge of one of skill in the art or in combination
`
`with Chao, O’Toole, or Taylor.
`
`44. Several claims of DiGioia II require a kinematic biomechanical
`
`simulator. As noted above, the system described in DiGioia II could be considered
`
`such a simulator. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1 (depicting biomechanical analysis
`
`system, shown to be in communication with geometric planner via arrows); id. at
`
`107 (stating system will “provide the surgeon with feedback concerning the
`
`distribution of strain in the bone, and the amount of bone-implant contact for a
`
`given surgical plan” and consider “bone remodeling effects due to joint loading
`
`and varying load transfer mechanisms,” which relates to movement and is
`
`therefore a kinematic biomechanical simulator).) Moreover, even if one adopts a
`
`more restrictive view of “simulator,” as noted above, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be motivated to combine DiGioia II with Chao. Chao indicates that
`
`its simulations may be used for “Selection and Planning in Total Joint
`
`Replacement” and discloses examples where “[j]oint pressure and motion were
`
`21
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 21
`
`
`
`obtained through model simulation.” (Ex. 1007 at 565.) It would have been
`
`obvious to one of skill in the art to combine simulations discussed in Chao with the
`
`system discussed in DiGioia II. Also, as with DiGioia, it would have been obvious
`
`to one of skill in the art to utilize the feedback as suggested by DiGioia II, re-run
`
`the simulation to determine optimal positioning of the component, and have the
`
`simulator output that position.
`
`45. Claims 2 and 15 require an intra-operative navigational module in
`
`communication with the pre-operative kinematic biomechanical simulator.
`
`DiGioia II indicates that “surgical robots actually improve the clinical usefulness
`
`of realistic surgical simulations” and that “surgical simulations also increase the
`
`utility of surgical robots.” (Ex. 1006 at 109.) A surgical robot necessarily includes
`
`an intra-operative navigational module to accurately perform the surgical
`
`procedures, and Figure 1 of DiGioia II depicts the communication between an
`
`intra-operative navigational module and the pre-operative kinematic biomechanical
`
`simulator, via the pre-operative planner.
`
`46. Claim 3 requires a tracking device in communication with said intra-
`
`operative navigational module. DiGioia II discloses that its system includes a
`
`computer assisted or robot-assisted surgery system component, as shown in Figure
`
`1, but does not expressly disclose any tracking device that used with a robot-
`
`assisted surgery system. It would have been obvious to include a tracking system
`
`22
`
`Mako Exhibit 1004 Page 22
`
`
`
`such as one described in O’Toole. As noted above, O’Toole is an article written by
`
`several of the same authors and published in 1995. As noted above, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would be motivated to combine DiGioia II with O’Toole. O’Toole
`
`states that with the use of high speed tracking, the bone being milled does not have
`
`to be rigidly fixated. This necessarily requires th