UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INO THERAPEUTICS, LLC. d/b/a IKARIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`
`CASE IPR: UNASSIGNED
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,573,209
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT T. STONE, PH.D
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INO THERAPEUTICS, LLC. d/b/a IKARIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`
`CASE IPR: UNASSIGNED
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,573,209
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT T. STONE, PH.D
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Robert T. Stone, Ph.D, do hereby declare and say:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of twenty-one (21) and competent to make this
`
`declaration. I am also qualified to give testimony under oath. The facts and
`
`opinions listed below are within my personal knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this proceeding at my
`
`standard consulting rate of $350.00/hr. My compensation in no way depends on
`
`the outcome of this proceeding or the content of my opinions. I am not
`
`employed by, nor receiving grant support from, Praxair Distribution, Inc., which
`
`I refer to as “Praxair”, or any of its related companies. I am receiving
`
`compensation from Praxair solely for my involvement in this matter and based
`
`only on my standard hourly consulting fees.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to review certain documents, including U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,873,209 (which I refer to as the ‘209 Patent) (Ex. 1001), and to
`
`provide my opinions on what those documents disclose. I was also asked to
`
`review and provide opinions regarding four other U.S. Patents. Specifically, I
`
`was asked to review and provide my opinions regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,297,904, U.S. Patent No. 8,573,210, U.S. Patent No. 8,776,794, and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,776,795. I have provided opinions specific to those patents in
`
`separate declarations. The documents I was asked to review include those
`
`addressed in more detail in the rest of this declaration and in the declarations
`
`related to the four other U.S. Patents I mentioned above.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Of particular relevance to the ‘209 Patent, I have reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the following documents:
`
`a.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,114,510 to Peters et al., which is marked
`
`as Ex. 1004. I refer to this document as the ‘510 Patent.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,558,083 to Bathe et al., which is marked as
`
`Ex. 1005. I refer to this document as the ‘083 Patent.
`
`c.
`
`The figures and English-language translation of French
`
`Patent Publication No. 2 917 804 to L’Air Liquide Societe Anonyme Por
`
`L’Etude et L’exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude. The document I
`
`relied on, which includes both the French-language version and the
`
`English-language translation, is marked as Ex. 1006. I refer to this
`
`document as the FR ‘804 Publication.
`
`d.
`
`ISO/IEEE 11073-30300, titled “Health informatics -- Point-
`
`of-care medical device communication -- Part 30300: Transport profile --
`
`Infrared wireless,” an ISO/IEEE standard marked as Ex. 1007. I refer to
`
`this document as the “IR Standard.”
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,811,533 to Lebel et al., which is marked as
`
`Ex. 1008. I refer to this document as the ‘533 Patent.
`
`f.
`
`A marketing brochure for the Air Liquide OptiKINOX
`
`inhaled Nitric Oxide delivery system, dated 2009, which is marked as Ex.
`
`1011.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g.
`
`A document titled “Guidance Document for Premarket
`
`Notification Submissions for Nitric Oxide Delivery Apparatus, Nitric
`
`Oxide Analyzer and Nitrogen Dioxide Analyzer,” issued January 24,
`
`2000 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
`
`Drug Administration, which is marked as Exhibit 1012. I refer to this
`
`document as the FDA guidance document.
`
`5.
`
`I provide my conclusions regarding the disclosures of the
`
`documents I reviewed as applied to the ‘209 Patent below.
`
`6.
`
`I was also asked to provide my opinion on the technical feasibility
`
`of combining certain aspects of certain documents. I have offered my opinion
`
`on the feasibility of these combinations in this declaration. I have also offered
`
`my opinions about what a person of skill in the art would understand about
`
`certain aspects of the resulting combinations of documents.
`
`7.
`
`I am not offering any conclusions as to the ultimate determinations
`
`I understand the Patent Trial and Appeals Board will make in this proceeding.
`
`Specifically, I am not offering opinions on ultimate issues of validity or claim
`
`construction. I am simply providing my opinion on the technical aspects of the
`
`documents and on the combinability of the concepts disclosed in those
`
`documents from a technical perspective.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Ex.
`
`1003.
`
`9.
`
`I received my B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Virginia
`
`Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1977, my M.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1979,
`
`and my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1981. My
`
`studies focused on electronics and signal processing.
`
`10.
`
`I have over thirty years of academic and industry experience in the
`
`field of medical electronics systems and instrumentation. I have extensive
`
`experience in the design of medical devices designed to communicate with
`
`remote computers, such as for control and monitoring of the delivery of
`
`treatment. I have experience designing the hardware interfaces of those
`
`systems, as well as designing the software executed on treatment delivery
`
`devices and control and monitoring hardware. I am presently the CEO and
`
`Founder of Medical Design Solutions, Inc., which is a consulting firm focusing
`
`on all aspects of medical device research and development.
`
`11. While employed at Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc., where I was
`
`Manager of Electronic Research from 1983 to 1989, I was the Lead Program
`
`Manager for the development of a patient monitoring system which allowed
`
`remote monitoring of in-hospital patients via a wireless network. That and
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`virtually all of my work at Nellcor involved embedded systems level
`
`programming and application programming.
`
`12. While employed at Natus Medical from 1991 to 1996, I designed
`
`an infant breath analyzer that was utilized in conjunction with both voluntary
`
`and mechanical ventilators. That work involved analyzing and selecting gas
`
`sensors, including CO2, NO, and O2 sensors, and integrating them into
`
`respiratory systems. I later participated in the design of ventilators during my
`
`employment at Pacific Consultants from 1997 to 2003.
`
`13. During the period of time from 2000 through 2008, I was involved
`
`in and supervised the development of a remotely operated and remotely
`
`powered implantable pumping system for weight control. This system had
`
`some of the safety and battery concerns implicated by the patents I was asked to
`
`review as part of my engagement in this case.
`
`14. Moreover, beginning in 2007 and continuing through the present, I
`
`have been involved in and have overseen the development of remote patient
`
`monitoring systems related to providing remote patients with telemedicine
`
`services. Such systems implicate several of the device-to-device
`
`communications issues at issue in the patents I have been asked to review as
`
`part of my engagement in this matter. These systems also relate to the
`
`considerations around ensuring that when medication is delivered to patients,
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`verification delivery of the appropriate amount of medication is critical to
`
`patient wellbeing and medication efficacy.
`
`15. Virtually all of my work experience since that time has included
`
`application programming. In 2007 through 2009, I developed a home-based
`
`wireless patient monitoring system that would communicate with a central
`
`server i.e. a computer configured to service multiple clients or remote
`
`computers.
`
`16.
`
`I am competent to make this declaration based upon my personal
`
`knowledge and technical expertise in the area of medical device design,
`
`including design of therapy delivery devices that communicate with remote
`
`control or monitoring systems.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`17.
`
`I understand that one of the relevant factors in this proceeding is
`
`the level of skill in the pertinent art. I understand that the pertinent date for this
`
`determination is date of alleged invention. For purposes of this declaration, I
`
`have been asked to assume that the date of invention for the ‘209 Patent is
`
`January 6, 2011.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of January 6,
`
`2011 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`two years’ experience in biomedical engineering designing medical gas delivery
`
`or monitoring systems.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`19. Much of the background of the technology at issue in the ‘209
`
`Patent can be gleaned from reviewing prior patents that are incorporated by
`
`reference in the ‘209 Patent. Specifically, the ‘510 Patent (Ex. 1001 at 7:45-47)
`
`describes known valves for use on gas cylinders, and the ‘083 Patent (Ex. 1001
`
`at 10:1-4) describes known gas delivery modules for delivering gas from a
`
`cylinder to a ventilator. A brief discussion of these patents serves as a
`
`technology background for the pertinent technology in the ‘209 Patent.
`
`The ‘510 Patent
`
`20. The application that issued as the ‘510 Patent was filed on
`
`November 15, 2001, claiming priority to a provisional application that was filed
`
`on November 17, 2000. The ‘510 Patent itself issued on October 6, 2006, more
`
`than four years before the filing of the earliest application that led to the ‘209
`
`Patent. INO Therapeutics, Inc., the patent owner of the ‘209 Patent, is one of
`
`the assignees listed on the face of the ‘209 Patent. I understand that the term
`
`“iNO” (as used, for example, in the name of the assignee of the ‘510 Patent) is
`
`an abbreviation for the phrase “inhaled nitric oxide.”
`
`21. Valves for affixing to cylinders of gas were well known in the art
`
`as of 2006, as evidenced by the ‘510 Patent. Specifically, it was known to
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provide a valve having a “valve body 14 [that] includes a threaded inlet port 18
`
`which screws onto the outlet port of the cylinder 12. The valve body 14 also
`
`includes an outlet port 20. The valve body 14, the outlet port 20, and the inlet
`
`port 18 may be modified for specific uses, cylinder sizes, or gases.” (Ex. 1004
`
`at 2:43-51). When rotated, a valve handle of such known valves opened or
`
`closed the valve itself, permitting or prohibiting gas to flow through. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1004 at 6:21-22). This valve handle is an example of a valve actuator
`
`because when it is turned by a user, the valve itself is actuated (i.e., opened or
`
`closed).
`
`22. As referenced in the ‘510 Patent, it was known prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the ‘209 Patent to provide a valve with electronics contained in
`
`the handle thereof to track usage and “enable logging and billing.” (Ex. 1004 at
`
`1:9-15). More specifically, known valves included so-called “smart handles” in
`
`which “several electronic devices [] mounted in the handle, including a
`
`processor 23, a timer 21, a reset button 27, an open/closed sensor 28, a battery
`
`25, a display 26, and an electronic memory device 22…” (Ex. 1004 at Abstract,
`
`2:58-61). Thus, before January 6, 2011, it was known to include electronics,
`
`such as processors, memory devices, and LCD displays, in “smart handles” of
`
`valves used to control delivery of gas to patients.
`
`23. The electronics referred to in the ‘510 Patent are positioned in a
`
`“compartment formed by the handle 16 and cover 24 in the preferred
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiment.” (Ex. 1004 at 3:3-5). In my opinion, the ‘510 Patent discloses
`
`that the electronics contained in this “compartment” include the valve memory
`
`referenced with numeral 22. (Ex. 1004 at 3:3-29). Because the handle is an
`
`actuator and the cover 24 is a cap on the handle, the electronics in the
`
`“compartment” are disposed between an actuator and a cap of the valve.
`
`24. Known “smart handles” included “sensors for sensing the opening
`
`and closing of the valve, a timer for timing the duration over which the valve is
`
`opened, and an electronic memory device which records the pertinent
`
`information.” (Ex. 1004 at 1:34-35, 1:43-52). The ‘510 Patent further describes
`
`the operation of known smart handles:
`
`When the valve handle 16 is turned to open or close the valve, the
`proximity sensor 28 triggers the processor 23 to instruct the
`memory device 22 to log the event, including date, time, and
`whether the event was an opening or a closing of the valve. This
`information
`is stored
`in a non-volatile,
`read-only-memory
`(NVROM) in the memory device 22.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at 6:21-27). Accordingly, known “smart handles” provided the
`
`capability of detecting the open time and close time of the valve, and stored that
`
`data in memory within the smart handle. This could be achieved, according to
`
`the ‘510 Patent, using “at least two timers 21, one of which is a calendar, and
`
`the other of which is an event timer.” (Ex. 1004 at 3:9-11).
`
`25. This data, once determined as described, could be stored by a valve
`
`processor 23 in valve memory 22 to record the time and date of events. (Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`1004 at 3:38-58, 6:21-32). This data could later be transmitted from the valve
`
`memory 22 to external devices as needed. (See Ex. 1004 at 6:33-7:15). In
`
`addition to the timing data regarding valve opening and closing, known “smart
`
`handles” could store gas data used to assist in therapy itself, such as Born On
`
`Date and Batch number to assign patient IDs to cylinders and identify control
`
`cylinders for blinded trials. (Ex. 1004 at 7:36-47).
`
`26. Known “smart handles” also included data ports or transceivers
`
`(short for “transmitter-receiver”) in communication with valve processors and
`
`valve memory devices through which data stored in the valve memory could be
`
`communicated from the smart handle to a remote computer device. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`6:33-55). The ‘510 Patent discloses that this communication of data can be
`
`achieved with either wired or wireless transceivers. (Ex. 1004 at 6:64-7:4).
`
`Specifically, the ‘510 Patent discloses portable iButtons, which operate
`
`according to a single-conductor communication protocol (Ex. 1004 at 6:37-46),
`
`or a direct data downloading protocol to download data through one-wire port
`
`22 onto a computer or printer (Ex. 1004 at 6:47-57). It also discloses that data
`
`can be periodically transmitted from the handle to a remote device using a
`
`wireless transmitter. (Ex. 1004 at 7:1-4).
`
`27. Such data ports also enabled the transfer of “initialization
`
`parameter data,” from a remote computer device to the memory device of a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`smart handle. (Ex. 1004 at 5:65-6:2). This initialization parameter data could
`
`include the following parameters:
`
`• Born on date (date when cylinder was filled)
`• Cylinder serial number
`• Gas lot number
`• Set the timers (which may include a calendar timer and an event timer)
`• Clear the log registers
`• Additional area may be available for recording specific notes or
`information relative to a specific treatment or lot.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at 5:45-56). In known smart handles, both the “distributor who is
`
`filling and supplying the filled cylinder” and the “user (such as the hospital)”
`
`could add data to the valve memory through the data port. (Ex. 1004 at 5:57-
`
`6:2).
`
`28. Accordingly, prior to January 6, 2011, it was well-known to
`
`transmit and receive data about the to and from a valve memory device in a
`
`smart handle using a transceiver in the smart handle.
`
`29. The ‘510 Patent does not appear to specify the kinds of gas its
`
`valve can be used to deliver. Claims 1 to 4 of the ‘510 Patent, however, are
`
`specifically directed to methods of tracking the use of gas for medical
`
`treatments. (Ex. 1004 at claims 1-4). The ‘510 Patent also explains, in setting
`
`up the problems it sought to solve, that “[s]ome medical treatments involve the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`use of gases that are inhaled by the patient.” (Ex. 1004 at 1:15-16). It refers to
`
`the gases addressed in its disclosure as “[p]harmaceutical gases, dispensed by
`
`prescription” (Ex. 1004 at 1:20-21) and states that “[t]he cylinder may contain
`
`pharmaceutical gas or other gases” (Ex. 1004 at 2:41-42). Based on these
`
`disclosures and on the fact that the ‘510 Patent is assigned to INO Therapeutics,
`
`it is my opinion that a person of skill in the art, reading the entirety of the ‘510
`
`Patent, would understand that one of the pharmaceutical gases that can be
`
`dispensed using the disclosed smart handle is nitric oxide (also abbreviated as
`
`“NO”).
`
`The ‘083 Patent
`
`30. The application that issued as the ‘083 Patent was filed on
`
`November 22, 1993. The ‘083 Patent issued on September 24, 1996, more than
`
`14 years before the filing of the earliest application that led to the ‘209 Patent.
`
`It is titled “Nitric Oxide Delivery System.” Like the ‘510 Patent, INO
`
`Therapeutics LLC, the patent owner of the ‘209 Patent, is also the assignee of
`
`the ‘083 Patent.
`
`31. The ‘083 Patent is generally directed to a “flow transducer that
`
`senses the flow of gas from the gas delivery system and uses that information
`
`with a selective algorithm to provide an operator selectable concentration of NO
`
`to the patient.” (Ex. 1005 at 2:20-24). It discloses a system for delivering gas
`
`from, for example, a cylinder 10 using various elements to regulate the
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`concentration and flow of the gas. (Ex. 1005 at 3:45-47). Accordingly, in gas
`
`delivery systems known long before the filing of the ‘209 Patent, a central
`
`processing unit (“CPU”) would receive signals from an input device indicative
`
`of the concentration the user desires to administer, and would receive signals
`
`from various transducers indicative of the flow rate and concentration of the
`
`gas. (Ex. 1005 at 5:60-6:4).
`
`32.
`
`In known systems, an input device was provided to enable the user
`
`to input patient data, such as “the desired concentration of NO that is to be
`
`administered to the patient.” (Ex. 1005 at 6:29-30). This input device could
`
`include a display in the form of a touch screen. (Ex. 1005 at 6:32). Thus, in
`
`known gas delivery systems, the user could set the desired NO concentration to
`
`be administered to the patient. (Ex. 1005 at 6:40-42). It was also known that in
`
`such delivery systems, if the actual NO concentration being delivered to the
`
`patient differed from a value set by the user, the CPU could generate an alarm
`
`and/or shut a shutoff valve to prevent further gas delivery. (Ex. 1005 at 8:1-12).
`
`33. Moreover, in systems known prior to January 6, 2011, a CPU that
`
`performed certain control functions received an input from a sensor that
`
`“sense[d] the concentration of NO in the supply cylinder 10 so that the user
`
`[could] verify that the proper supply [was] being utilized…” (Ex. 1005 at 6:5-
`
`8). Systems prior to January 6, 2011 also contemplated a CPU receiving data
`
`about the actual concentration of gas in a supply cylinder from other sources.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 6:11-15). Accordingly, it was known to rely on a CPU to help
`
`verify that a gas source contained the correct concentration of gas for a
`
`particular patient.
`
`34. Known gas delivery systems (such as the one described in the ‘083
`
`Patent) were capable of being connected to two different cylinders of gas at the
`
`same time. (Ex. 1005 at 8:38-65; Fig. 2). In such systems, the CPU controlled
`
`the flow of gas from both cylinders as was appropriate given the type of gas in
`
`both cylinders and the specific needs of the patient.
`
`THE ‘209 PATENT
`
`35. The ‘209 Patent was filed against the backdrop of the state of the
`
`art based on at least the prior art discussed above. Indeed, the ‘209 Patent
`
`incorporates both prior art references discussed above by reference. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 7:22-28 (‘510 Patent), 9:49-52 (‘083 Patent)).
`
`36. The ‘209 Patent is generally related to a “gas delivery system for
`
`administering therapy gas and methods of administering therapy gas.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:5-7). The Background section of the ‘209 Patent sets forth the state of
`
`the art and the alleged problems that allegedly needed to be solved. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 1:11-35). In describing the pre-existing technology, the ‘209 Patent concedes
`
`that known devices tracked data about gas therapy:
`
`Known gas delivery devices may include a computerized system
`for tracking patient information, including information regarding
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`the type of gas therapy, concentration of gas to be administered and
`dosage information for a particular patient.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:18-22).
`
`37. One of the problems the ‘209 Patent identifies with such known
`
`tracking systems is that they allegedly did not communicate with other devices:
`
`these computerized systems often do not communicate with other
`components of gas delivery devices, for example, the valve that
`controls the flow of the gas to the computerized system and/or
`ventilator for administration to the patient
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:22-26). The ‘209 Patent also states that “in known systems, the
`
`amount of gas utilized by a single patient is often difficult or impossible to
`
`discern, leading to possible overbilling for usage.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:26-29).
`
`38.
`
`In my experience, medical devices long before January 6, 2011
`
`were able to perform both tasks identified as being weaknesses. Specifically, I
`
`am aware of delivery devices that could communicate with other devices during
`
`delivery of therapy. As an example, intravenous medication delivery devices
`
`and ventilators were frequently in communication with central monitoring
`
`systems in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) to allow--and indeed to insure--allowing
`
`accurate, computer based monitoring of drug or therapy delivery by medical
`
`staff.
`
`39.
`
`I am also aware of systems that tracked the amount of a drug
`
`delivered to a patient during treatment. Since this is of critical importance, in
`
`many clinical applications (such as dialysis applications), the amount of therapy
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`drug delivered to a patient is closely monitored. This was true long before
`
`January 6, 2011.
`
`40. Notwithstanding the fact that the problems the ‘209 Patent
`
`identified had well-known solutions prior to January 6, 2011, the ‘209 Patent
`
`describes what it characterizes as an unfulfilled need:
`
`There is a need for a gas delivery device that integrates a
`computerized system to ensure that patient information contained
`within the computerized system matches the gas that is to be
`delivered by the gas delivery device. There is also a need for such
`an integrated device that does not rely on repeated manual set-ups
`or connections and which can also track individual patient usage
`accurately and simply.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:29-35).
`
`41. The ‘209 Patent purports to satisfy these needs with what it
`
`describes as a “gas delivery system” that contains a “gas delivery device, a
`
`control module and a gas delivery mechanism.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract). Giving
`
`examples of each of the three sub-components of the overall system, the ‘209
`
`Patent states that the gas delivery device includes a “valve assembly with a
`
`valve and circuit.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract). It further describes the gas delivery
`
`device as sending “wireless optical line-of-sight signals” to the control module.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Abstract). Finally, examples of the gas delivery mechanism
`
`include “a ventilator and a breathing circuit. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract).
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`42. The ‘209 Patent states that “[t]he gas delivery devices and systems
`
`described herein may be utilized with medical devices such as ventilators and
`
`the like to delivery [sic] gas to a patient.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:56-1:59).
`
`43. Figs. 1 and 3 of the ‘209 Patent, reproduced below for reference,
`
`provide detail about the system described in the ‘209 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`In the ‘209 Patent, the gas delivery system is referred to as numeral
`
`10. Numeral 100 refers to the valve assembly, numeral 200 refers to the control
`
`module, and numeral 400 refers to a ventilator. (Ex. 1001 at 5:53-63). These
`
`three sub-components of the gas delivery system are used to deliver gas from
`
`gas source 50 to a patient labeled in Fig. 1 as “PATIENT.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:59-
`
`63).
`
`45. The valve assembly 100 includes a valve 107 that controls the flow
`
`of gas. (Ex. 1001 at 5:65). It also includes an actuator “disposed on the valve
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`107 [that] is rotatable around the valve 107 for opening and closing the valve
`
`107.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:12-14). The actuator contains a sensor to sense whether
`
`the actuator is turned on or off. (Ex. 1001 at 7:22-28). The ‘209 Patent
`
`concedes that such sensors were known, noting that they are described in the
`
`‘510 Patent. (Ex. 1001 at 7:26-28).
`
`46.
`
`It is clear from reading the ‘209 Patent that the actuator described
`
`therein is a manually operable actuator that, when rotated by the hand of the
`
`operator, opens or closes the valve 107. First, the fact that no motor is
`
`described, and instead a sensor is used to detect when the actuator has “been
`
`rotated” to the opened or closed position, indicates the actuator is hand-
`
`operable. (Ex. 1001 at 7:22-7:54). Second, the ‘209 Patent discusses the use of
`
`alarms “to alert the user to turn off the valve or, more specifically, the actuator
`
`114 when the dose has been delivered.” (Ex. 1001 at 14:5-14:8). Third, the
`
`‘209 Patent describes that “[c]oordinating delivery of the gas may include
`
`turning on the actuator 114 of the valve 107.” (Ex. 1001 at 15:52-55).
`
`Accordingly, the ‘209 Patent covers manually operable actuators to open and
`
`close the valve that controls delivery of therapy gas.
`
`47. The valve described in the ‘209 Patent also includes a circuit 150
`
`that contains many sub-circuits illustrated in Fig. 4. (Ex. 1001 at 6:22-48). The
`
`valve circuit 150 includes a transceiver 120 and is in communication with a
`
`valve display 132 visible from the exterior of the valve. (Ex. 1001 at 6:22-35).
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Finally, the valve includes a data input 108 “used to transfer data
`
`from the valve memory 134 to other devices or to input data to the valve
`
`memory 134.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:49-53). The ‘209 Patent gives the example that
`
`gas data about the gas in the cylinder 50 may be communicated to the valve and
`
`used by the circuit 150, through data input 108, from a bar code scanned with a
`
`scanning device connected to the data input 108. (Ex. 1001 at 7:58-66). With
`
`regard to the content of the data, the ‘209 Patent states:
`
`Gas data may include information regarding the gas composition
`(e.g., NO, O2, NO2, CO, etc.), concentration, expiration date, batch
`and lot number, date of manufacturing and other information. Gas
`data may be configured to include one or more types of
`information.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 7:66-8:2).
`
`49. The ‘209 Patent also discusses the capability for the valve
`
`transceiver 120 to communicate with CPU transceiver 220. (Ex. 1001 at 7:55-
`
`58). In the preferred embodiment of the ‘209 Patent, the valve transceiver 120
`
`communicates with the CPU transceiver 220 using “wireless optical line-of-
`
`sight” communications. (Ex. 1001 at 8:5-8). This optical line of sight is
`
`illustrated with numeral 300 in Fig. 1. (Ex. 1001 at 5:53-56). In this
`
`embodiment, “the CPU transceiver 220 is positioned directly above the valve
`
`transceiver 120” to provide an optical line of sight between the devices. (Ex.
`
`1001 at 9:21-23).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`50. The control module 200 of Fig. 1 also includes a delivery module
`
`260 that “regulat[es] the flow of gas from the gas source 50 to the ventilator
`
`400.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:43-45). The ‘209 Patent concedes that the delivery
`
`module 260 is conventional and known in the prior art, citing to the ‘083 Patent
`
`as containing a description of the “detailed method of how the delivery module
`
`delivers the gas to the ventilator circuit.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:49-52). The ‘209
`
`Patent discloses that “the delivery module 260 can detect and regulate the flow
`
`of gas from the gas source 50 to the ventilator 400.” (Ex. 1001 at 10:2-4).
`
`51. The ventilator 400 includes a breathing circuit 410 with an
`
`inspiratory limb 412 and an expiratory limb 414, each in fluid communication
`
`with the ventilator 400. (Ex. 1001 at 9:57-60). According to the ‘209 Patent,
`
`the “inspiratory limb 412 carries gas to the patient and the expiratory limb 414
`
`carries gas exhaled by the patient to the ventilator 400.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:63-65).
`
`52. With regard to the control module 200, the ‘209 Patent discloses
`
`that the user can enter patient information, such as identity, type/concentration
`
`of gas to be administered, dose of gas to be administered, or other patient data.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 11:17-23). Such data allegedly provides a safety benefit, as it
`
`enables the control module to “detect[] a non-confirming drug or gas source, an
`
`expired drug or gas, incorrect gas type, incorrect gas concentration and the like.
`
`In addition, embodiments of the gas delivery system described herein also
`
`improve efficiency of gas therapy.” (Ex. 1001 at 11:32-35).
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`53. More specifically, the ‘209 Patent discloses that a gas provider
`
`prepares a gas delivery device by filling a gas source 50 with gas and attaching
`
`a valve assembly 100 to the gas source. (Ex. 1001 at 11:41-46). Gas data may
`
`then be stored in the valve, either by the gas supplier or manufacturer or at the
`
`medical facility. (Ex. 1001 at 11:46-55). This may be achieved, for example,
`
`by scanning a bar code with a bar code scanner connected to the data port, as
`
`discussed above.
`
`54. Thereafter, the gas cylinder can be positioned such that a line-of-
`
`sight is established between the valve transceiver and the CPU transceiver. (Ex.
`
`1001 at 11:55-58). The gas data can then communicate from the valve to the
`
`CPU via the optical line-of-sight, and the CPU compares the gas data from the
`
`valve to the patient information. (Ex. 1001 at 11:58-63). According to the ‘209
`
`Patent, “[i]f the gas data and the patient information match, then gas is
`
`administered to the patient” through the ventilator. (Ex. 1001 at 12: 7-10).
`
`Alternatively, if the gas data does not match the patient data, an alarm is
`
`emitted. (Ex. 1001 at 12:10-11).
`
`55. The ‘209 Patent gives several examples of the kinds of
`
`comparisons that can be made by the CPU to determine whether to either
`
`deliver gas to a patient or emit an alarm. First, it discloses comparing the gas
`
`expiration date, stored in the valve, with the current date to determine whether
`
`the gas has expired. (Ex. 1001 at 12:42-12:54). Second, it discloses comparing
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`gas concentration data stored in the valve with a concentration of gas to be
`
`administered to the patient. (Ex. 1001 at 12:55-13:9).
`
`56. The ‘209 Patent also includes discussions of various well-known
`
`techniques for preserving power in battery-operated systems. It states that in
`
`“embodiments in which the power source 130 includes a battery, the valve
`
`transceiver 120 may be configured to communicate with the CPU transceiver
`
`220 to preserve the life of the battery.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:55-58). In such
`
`embodiments, once communications between the valve transceiver and the CPU
`
`transceiver have been established, the interval between communications
`
`between the valve and the control module is between 5 and 20 seconds, with a
`
`preferred interval of 10 seconds. (Ex. 1001 at 8:15-21). These descriptions
`
`reflect the well-known concept that when designing battery powered devices,
`
`the communication intervals should be selected to be as long as possible for the
`
`particular application of the device. In the context of the ‘209 Patent, in which
`
`the only data that is being communicated is data about the gas in the cylinder,
`
`frequent communications are unnecessary and the stated interval of 5 to 20
`
`seconds is appropriate. This is particularly true because changes in the position
`
`and valve status of the cylinder occur fairly infrequently, and thus it is not
`
`critical to check in with the valve at intervals shorter than 5 to 20 seconds.
`
`57. The ‘209 Patent also includes a discussion of
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.
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
