IPR2015-00630, No. 2012 Exhibit - Ex 2012 Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

Patent Owner and Exclusive Licensee’s
`Demonstrative Slides
`
`IPR2015-00630 and IPR2015-00629
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,205,411 and 6,757,582
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`April 7, 2016
`
`Blue Belt Technologies, Inc. and Carnegie
`Mellon University
`Exhibit 2012
`Blue Belt Technologies Inc. and Carnegie
`Mellon University v. Mako Surgical Corp.
`IPR2015-00630
`
`1
`
`

`
`Order of Presentation – ’411 Patent
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Introduction
`
`Topics in Dispute
`
`1. DiGioia Is Not Prior Art
`
`2. DiGioia Does Not Render Claims 1-15 and 17 Obvious
`and DiGioia in View of DiGioia II Does Not Render
`Claim 16 Obvious
`
`3. Motion to Amend
`
`4. Motion to Exclude
`
`22
`
`

`
`Introduction – ’411 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, ’411 Patent at Cover
`
`3
`
`

`
`Introduction – Shadyside and CMU Joint Research
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 5
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 6
`
`4
`
`

`
`Introduction – Shadyside and CMU Joint Research
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 6
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 6
`
`5
`
`

`
`DiGioia Is Not “By Another”
`
`Ex. 1001, ’411 Patent at 1
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`Ex. 1005, DiGioia at 1
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`Ex. 1005, DiGioia at 8
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl., at ¶ 15
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 20
`
`7
`
`

`
`DiGioia Is Not “By Another”
`
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`8
`
`

`
`Dr. Takeo Kanade’s Contributions
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 15
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Confirmed That Dr. Kanade
`Contributed to HipNav
`
`a
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 85:22-86:10
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 21
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 52:18-53:19
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 21
`
`10
`
`

`
`Mr. Kischell’s & Mr. Colgan’s Contributions Are Not Recited in the ’411
`Claims and Not Reflected in the Relied-Upon Portions of DiGioia
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 16
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`11
`
`

`
`Mr. Kischell’s & Mr. Colgan’s Contributions Are Not Recited in the ’411
`Claims and Not Reflected in the Relied-Upon Portions of DiGioia
`
`a
`
`a
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 17
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 19
`
`12
`
`

`
`Mr. Kischell’s Declaration Does Not Establish That He
`Contributed to the Cited Portions of DiGioia
`
`a
`
`Ex. 1013, Kischell Decl. at ¶ 8
`Paper No. 23, Pet’r’s Reply at 14
`
`13
`
`

`
`Mr. Kischell’s Declaration Does Not Establish That He
`Contributed to the Cited Portions of DiGioia
`
`a
`
`Ex. 1013, Kischell Decl. at ¶ 9
`Paper No. 11, Pet’r’s Reply at 14
`
`14
`
`

`
`DiGioia Was Published in November 1996
`
`a
`
`Ex. 1005, DiGioia at 7-8
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 2-3
`
`15
`
`

`
`DiGioia Was Published in November 1996
`
`a
`
`Ex. 2009 at 6
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 3
`
`Ex. 2009 at 1
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 3
`
`16
`
`

`
`DiGioia Was Published in November 1996
`
`a
`
`a
`
`Ex. 1012, Jaramaz Dep. at 61:15-62:12
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 4
`
`Ex. 1012, Jaramaz Dep. at 62:14-63:12
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 4
`
`17
`
`

`
`The ’411 Patent is Entitled to Claim the Benefit of the
`’976 Patent’s Filing Date
`
`a
`
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 23
`
`a
`
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 23-24
`
`18
`
`

`
`Hip Replacement Surgery is Representative of the
`Surgeries Recited in the ’411 Patent Claims
`
`a
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. ¶ 35
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 24
`
`19
`
`

`
`A POSA Would Have Been Able to Apply the Teachings of
`the ’976 Patent to the Surgeries Claimed in the ’411 Patent
`
`a
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. ¶ 37
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 25
`
`20
`
`

`
`The Prosecution History of the ’411 Patent
`
`a
`
`a
`
`Ex. 1002, ’411 Patent File History, p. 265
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 26
`
`Ex. 1002, ’411 Patent File History, at 287-88
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 26
`
`21
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Conclusory Testimony
`Does Not Establish Obviousness
`
`Ex. 1004, Howe Decl. at ¶ 38
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 29
`
`23
`
`

`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`to Modify DiGioia
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 45
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 34
`
`Ex. 2001, Robotics for Surgery at 213
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 33
`
`24
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Conclusory Testimony
`Does Not Establish Obviousness
`
`Ex. 1004, Howe Decl. at ¶ 38
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 29
`
`25
`
`

`
`Figure 3 of DiGioia Does Not Show
`“Bi-Directional Communication”
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 48
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 32
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 47
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 31
`
`26
`
`

`
`DiGioia Does Not Disclose “Pre-operative Planner” That “Outputs At
`Least One Geometric Model Of The Joint,” As Recited In Claim 1
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 50
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 36
`
`27
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Acknowledged That Storing the Geometric Model in
`Memory Would be “Consistent” With DiGioia
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 85:12-21
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 36
`
`28
`
`

`
`The Pre-Operative Planner Did Not Output a Geometric Model of a Joint
`in the February 1996 Implementation of HipNav
`
`Ex. 2002, Jaramaz Decl. at ¶ 10
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 36
`
`29
`
`

`
`DiGioia Does Not Disclose “Creating a Three Dimensional
`Component Model of the Artificial Implant,” as Recited in Claim 17
`
`Ex. 1005, DiGioia at 3
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 37
`
`Ex. 1005, DiGioia at Fig. 4
`Paper No. 2, Petition at 26
`
`30
`
`

`
`DiGioia Does Not Disclose “Creating a Three Dimensional
`Component Model of the Artificial Implant,” as Recited in Claim 17
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 52
`Paper No. 11, Patent Owner Response at 37
`
`31
`
`

`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 18
`
`Paper No. 12, Motion to Amend at 18-19
`
`33
`
`

`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 27
`
`Paper No. 12, Motion to Amend at 20-21
`
`34
`
`

`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 34
`
`Paper No. 12, Motion to Amend at 22-23
`
`35
`
`

`
`DiGioia II Does Not Disclose a "Three-Dimensional Model of the Hip Joint" or a
`"Three-Dimensional Component Model of the Artificial Component"
`
`Ex. 1006, DiGioia II at 110
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opp. to Motion to Amend at 7
`
`36
`
`

`
`DiGioia II's "Axisymmetric Model" Is Not a "Three Dimensional Model
`of a Hip Joint" Generated Based On "Skeletal Data"
`
`Ex. 1006, DiGioia II at 109
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opp. to Motion to Amend at 7-8
`
`37
`
`

`
`Chao Does Not Disclose a "Three-Dimensional Model of the Hip Joint"
`or a "Three-Dimensional Component Model of the Artificial Component"
`
`Ex. 1007, Chao at 5
`Paper No. 30, Reply to Opp. to Motion to Amend at 9
`
`38
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Render Proposed
`Claims 18, 27, and 34 Obvious
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 58
`Paper No. 12, Motion to Amend at 16
`
`39
`
`

`
`Dr. Cleary Did Not Admit SpineAssist Was Prior Art
`
`Ex. 2003, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 46
`Paper No. 22, Patent Owner Response at 34
`
`40
`
`

`
`Dr. Howe’s Redirect Testimony
`Should Be Excluded
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 87:11-13
`Paper No. 38, Reply to Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 1
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 91:6-15
`Paper No. 38, Reply to Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 7
`
`42
`
`

`
`PO's Cross Examination Did Not Open
`the Door for the Redirect
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 56:4-10
`Paper No. 34, Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 2
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 56:11-14
`Paper No. 34, Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 3
`
`43
`
`

`
`PO's Cross Examination Did Not Open
`the Door for the Redirect
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 57:12-16
`Paper No. 34, Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 3
`
`Ex. 2006, Howe Dep. at 59:5-14
`Paper No. 34, Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 3
`
`44
`
`

`
`Order of Presentation – ’582 Patent
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Introduction
`
`Topics in Dispute
`
`1. Claim Construction
`
`2. Taylor Does Not Anticipate Independent Claims 1, 17, and
`24 and Their Dependent Claims
`
`3. Taylor and DiGioia Do Not Render Claim 7 Obvious
`
`4. Taylor and Delp Do Not Render Claims 48 and 49 Obvious
`
`5. The Motion to Exclude Should be Granted
`
`4545
`
`

`
`Introduction – ’582 Patent
`
`46
`
`

`
`Introduction – ’582 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at Fig. 7
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 31
`
`47
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – “Tracking Data”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 33
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 20:35-47
`
`Paper No. 13, Pet’r’s Reply at 2
`
`49
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – “Tracking Data”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 35
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 9
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Paper No. 13, Pet’r’s Reply at 2
`
`50
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 21:39-53
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – “Tracking Data”
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 9:46-60
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 33
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`51
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – “Tracking Data”
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘582 Patent at 1:53-2:52
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 4:62-5:16
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`52
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – “Tracking Data”
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 9:46-60
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 33
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 8
`
`53
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach the
`“Tracking Data” Limitations of Claims 1 and 17
`
`Ex. 1009, Taylor at 270
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 22
`
`55
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach the
`“Tracking Data” Limitations of Claims 1 and 17
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 44
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 17-18
`
`56
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach the
`“Tracking Data” Limitations of Claims 1 and 17
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 45
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 17-18
`
`57
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach the
`“Tracking Data” Limitations of Claims 1 and 17
`
`. . .
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 46
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 19-20
`
`58
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach a “4-D Image,”
`as Recited in Claim 24
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 22:26-40
`
`59
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach a “4-D Image,”
`as Recited in Claim 24
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 262
`Petition at 24, 29
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 268
`Petition at 24, 29
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 270
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 24, 29
`
`60
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach a “4-D Image,”
`as Recited in Claim 24
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 69
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 39
`
`61
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach a “4-D Image,”
`as Recited in Claim 24
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 69
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 39
`
`62
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach a “4-D Image,”
`as Recited in Claim 24
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 70
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 39
`
`63
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Anticipate Claim 9
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 20:36-47
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 21:6-11
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 268
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 24
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 270
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 24
`
`64
`
`

`
`A Mathematical Representation
`Does Not Teach a “Cutting Tool Image”
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 54
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 25
`
`65
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Anticipate
`Claims 16, 39, 54, 55, and 57
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 21:36-38
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 23:21-23
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 24:18-20
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 24:21-25
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 24:30-33
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 270
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 25
`
`66
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Teach
`“Collision Detection” by the “Controller”
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 57
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 27
`
`67
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach “Classifying,” “Updating,” “Identifying”
`“Voxels” as Required by Claims 21-23, 26-30, 40-42, 50-52, and 56
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 22:12-25
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 22:43-57
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 23:24-31
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 23:56-24:9
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 24:25-28
`68
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach “Classifying,” “Updating,” “Identifying”
`“Voxels” as Required by Claims 21-23, 26-30, 40-42, 50-52, and 56
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 266
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 28
`
`69
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach “Classifying,” “Updating,” “Identifying”
`“Voxels” as Required by Claims 21-23, 26-30, 40-42, 50-52, and 56
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 269
`Paper No. 1, Petition at 28
`
`70
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Teach “Classifying,” “Updating,” “Identifying”
`“Voxels” as Required by Claims 21-23, 26-30, 40-42, 50-52, and 56
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 64
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 33
`
`71
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Anticipate Claims 35 and 36
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 22:26-40
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 23:7-13
`
`72
`
`

`
`Taylor Does Not Anticipate Claims 35 and 36
`
`Ex. 1008, Taylor at 268
`Paper No.1, Petition at 31
`
`73
`
`

`
`Taylor Describes Geometric Calibration
`Using a Probe, Not Calibration of a Probe
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 79
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 43-44
`
`74
`
`

`
`Taylor and DiGioia Do Not Render Claim 7 Obvious
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 21:35-47
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 22:1-5
`
`76
`
`

`
`Taylor and DiGioia Do Not Render Claim 7 Obvious
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 111
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 56
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 112
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 56
`
`77
`
`

`
`Taylor and Delp Do Not Render
`Claims 48 and 49 Obvious
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 25:26-42
`
`Ex. 1001, ’582 Patent at 26:48-56
`
`79
`
`

`
`Taylor and Delp Do Not Render
`Claims 48 and 49 Obvious
`
`Ex. 1011, Delp at 758
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 59
`
`80
`
`

`
`Taylor and Delp Do Not Render
`Claims 48 and 49 Obvious
`
`Ex. 2004, Cleary Decl. at ¶ 105
`Paper No. 10, Patent Owner Response at 60
`
`81
`
`

`
`Dr. Cleary’s Cited Testimony Should Be Excluded
`
`Ex. 1016, Cleary Dep. at 65:22-66:11
`Paper No. 17, Motion to Exclude at 1
`
`Ex. 1016, Cleary Dep. at 66:21-67:6
`Paper No. 17, Motion to Exclude at 1
`
`83

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

Up-to-date information for this case.
Email alerts whenever there is an update.
Full text search for other cases.
Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases