Bonutti Research Inc., and Joint Active Systems, Inc.
`
`V.
`
`Lantz Medical, Inc.
`
`Claim Construction Report of
`
`Renee D. Rogge, Ph.D.
`
`Prepared for
`
`Lantz Medical, Inc.
`
`Prepared by
`
`Renee D. Rogge, Ph.D.
`
`1810 N. 7* Street
`
`Terre Haute, IN 47804
`
`March 16, 2015
`
`
`
`

`
`CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.]
`
`1.2
`
`Scope of Work
`
`Patents and Claims
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`2.]
`
`Claim Construction
`
`2.2
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`3.]
`
`US. Patent No. 5,848,979 (“the ‘979 Patent”)
`
`3.1.1
`
`Claim Term 1: “base”
`
`3.1.2
`
`Claim Term 2: “drive means”
`
`Ea_0l£
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`Claim Term 3: “a main gear which is connected with said first cuff means
`3.1.3
`11
`and is rotatable with said first cuff means relative to said base”
`
`3.1.4
`said base”
`
`Claim Term 4: “second gear is at least partially disposed in a recess in
`
`3.1.5
`
`Claim Term 5: “gear means”
`
`3.2
`
`US. Patent No. 7,112, 179 (“the ‘I 79 Patent”)
`
`Claim Term 1: “orthosis for stretching tissue around ajoint of a patient
`3.2.1
`between first and second relatively pivotal body portions”
`
`3.2.2
`
`Claim Term 2: “first extension member”
`
`Claim Term 3: “second extension member having an arcuate shape
`3.2.3
`extending therefrom”
`
`3.2.4
`
`Claim Term 4: “arcuate shape”
`
`3.2.5
`
`Claim Term 5: “arcuate path”
`
`3.2.6
`member”
`
`Claim Term 6: “travels along an arcuate path through the first extension
`
`3.3
`
`US. Patent No. 7,404,804 (“the ‘804 Patent”)
`
`3.3.1
`
`Claim Term 1: “orthosis”
`
`3.3.2
`
`Claim Term 2: “bending mechanism”
`
`12
`
`12
`
`14
`
`14
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`17
`
`18
`
`18
`
`18
`
`LANTZ 1005.2
`
`

`
`3.3.3
`
`Claim Term 3: “removably attachable to the finger”
`
`3.3.4
`
`Claim Term 4: “first and second bending portions”
`
`Claim Term 5: “a force transmitting mechanism connected to and
`3.3.5
`interposed between the first and second bending portions”
`
`3.4
`
`US. Patent No. 7,955,286 ( “the ‘286 Patent”)
`
`3.4.l
`
`Claim Term l: “orthosis”
`
`19
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`21
`
`Claim Term 2: “a first arm member for coupling to the first body portion
`3.4.2
`and defining a curved path”
`21
`
`3.4.3
`
`Claim Term 3: “operatively coupled”
`
`3.4.4
`
`Claim Term 4: “movable along the curved path”
`
`3.4.5
`
`Claim Term 5: “curved path”
`
`3.4.6
`
`Claim Term 6: “drive assembly”
`
`3.4.7
`
`lndefiniteness Assertions
`
`3.4.7.1 Claim Term 7: “curVed path”
`
`3.4.7.2 Claim term 8: “configured to at least one of increase or decrease the
`range of motion of the orthosis”
`
`3.5
`
`US. Patent No. 8,784,343 (“the ‘343 Patent”)
`
`3.5.1
`
`Claim Term l: “lockout element”
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`APPENDIX A -- LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`APPENDIX B —- CURRICULUM VITAE FOR RENEE D. ROGGE, Ph.D.
`
`\lO'8U'l-Ii
`
`22
`
`22
`
`22
`
`23
`
`23
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`25
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`34
`
`LANTZ 1005.3
`
`

`
`LIMITATIONS
`
`Renee D. Rogge was retained as a consultant by Carson Boxberger LLP to perform analyses and
`
`provide opinions as they relate to the Bonutti Research, Inc. and Joint Active Systems, Inc. V.
`
`Lantz Medical, Inc. lawsuit. This report summarizes the work performed as of the date of the
`
`submission of the report and presents the findings that resulted from that work. The author
`
`reserves the right to supplement this report and to expand on or modify any opinions based on
`
`the review of additional material as it becomes available and/or any additional work or review of
`
`work done by the author or others as it relates to this lawsuit.
`
`LANTZ 1005.4
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.1 Scope of Work
`
`l.
`
`Renee D. Rogge has been retained by Carbon Boxberger LLP, who is
`
`representing Lantz Medical, Inc. in this matter, to initially address the disputed claim elements of
`
`five patents that have been asserted in the case of Bonutti Research, Inc. and Active Joint
`
`Systems, Inc. V. Lantz Medical, Inc. (“the Patents—in-Suit”). The disputed claim elements will be
`
`addressed as to their meanings to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`for each of the Patents—in-Suit.
`
`2.
`
`This report presents my opinions, and the bases for the opinions, as they relate to
`
`the construction of the claim elements (e. g. terms, phrases, or clauses) in dispute for each of the
`
`Patents—in—Suit.
`
`3.
`
`The materials listed in Appendix A were considered in the formulations of the
`
`opinions presented in this work. As they relate to stated opinions, specific materials are
`
`referenced throughout the text of the report. My formal education in biomedical engineering, as
`
`well as any acquired knowledge/experience gained through teaching courses and conducting
`
`research in the field of biomedical engineering, provided a foundation for the material presented
`
`in this report.
`
`4.
`
`All of the definitions for the disputed claim elements provided in this document
`
`are presented from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention of each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`LANTZ 1005.5
`
`

`
`1.2 Patents and Claims
`
`5.
`
`There are five Patents—in-Suit and 32 claims of concern] :
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 5,848,979 (“the ‘979 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims: 28, 29, 34, 37, 44, 45, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57, 63, 97, 98,
`
`102,106,125,126, and 128
`
`Independent Claims: 28, 34, 44, 56, 97, 125
`
`Dependent Claims: 29, 37, 45, 48, 52, 53, 57, 63, 98, 102, 106, 126, 128
`
`Priority Date: July 18, 1996
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 7,112,179 (“the ‘ 179 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims.‘ 26 (independent claim)
`
`Priority Date: March 8, 2004
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 7,404,804 (“the ‘804 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims: 1 (independent claim)
`
`Priority Date: September 18, 2000
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 7,955,286 (“the ‘286 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims: 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33
`
`Independent Claims: 26
`
`Dependent Claims: 27-31, 33
`
`Priority Date: March 20, 2006
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 8,784,343 (“the ‘343 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims: 1, 2, 3, 4
`
`Independent Claims: 1
`
`Dependent Claims: 2 — 4
`
`Priority Date: August 12, 2005
`
`1 Defendant’s Preliminary Construction of Terms and Claim Elements, issued January 23, 2015
`2
`
`LANTZ 1005.6
`
`

`
`2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`2.1
`
`Claim Construction
`
`6.
`
`My educational background is in biomedical engineering with expertise in the
`
`design and analysis of orthopaedic implants.
`
`I have over 10 years of experience teaching design
`
`and engineering mechanics courses to undergraduate engineering students. I have a basic
`
`understanding of patent law concepts and have requested (and received) assistance from the
`
`attorneys from Carson Boxberger LLP, who represent Lantz Medical, Inc., to provide me with
`
`information and guidance relevant to patent law as it applies to this case. I have also consulted
`
`the USPTO website2 for clarification of terms and processes as they relate to this case.
`
`7.
`
`It is my understanding that claim terms are to be interpreted in a manner that is
`
`consistent with their plain meaning in light of the specification as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. The plain meaning is the ordinary and customary meaning to those skilled in the
`
`art at the time of the invention. It is also my understanding that the specification (including
`
`claims) and drawings are the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term and the
`
`interpretation of a term must be consistent with the specification and how the term is commonly
`
`used in the art.
`
`8.
`
`It is my understanding that intrinsic evidence (the patent documentation and any
`
`prosecution history) is the starting point for evaluating the claim terms. It is also my
`
`understanding that the extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, treatises, expert testimony, etc.) may also
`
`be used for evaluating the claim terms.
`
`9.
`
`It is my understanding that a “means—plus~function” limitation is possible for a
`
`claim where a patentee uses functional claim language to define a claimed invention. This is
`
`generally done by including the term “means” with a specific function in the claim instead of
`
`affirmative limitations describing the structure necessary for performing the function. It is my
`
`understanding that this is referred to as “means—plus—function” claiming under 35 U.S.C. §1l2,
`
`116.
`
`10.
`
`It is my understanding that there is a presumption that 35 U.S.C. §1l2, 116 has
`
`been invoked if a claim limitation explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional
`
`2 www.uspto.goV
`
`LANTZ 1005.7
`
`

`
`language. However, that presumption may be rebutted when the claim limitation includes the
`
`structure necessary to perform the cited function. It is also my understanding that a claim
`
`limitation that does not use the term “means” will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35
`
`U.S.C. §1l2, $[6 does not apply. This presumption may be rebutted if the claim limitation is
`
`shown to use another term that is a substitute for “means” and is not recognized by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as being a sufficiently definite structure for performing a claimed
`
`function.
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that a “means—plus—function” term under 35 U.S.C. §112,
`
`116 requires a two—step process where the function recited in the claim is determined and
`
`construed, followed by a determination of the structures that have been disclosed in the
`
`specification to perform the recited function.
`
`I also understand that the corresponding structure
`
`must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`invention will understand what structure will perform the function.
`
`2.2
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`Based on the technologies disclosed, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention of the Patents-in—Suit would be an occupational
`
`therapist, physical therapist, mechanical engineer, and/or biomedical engineer with three to five
`
`years of experience designing or evaluating the design of orthotics.
`
`LANTZ 1005.8
`
`

`
`3
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`3.1 U.S. Patent No. 5,848,979 (“the ‘979 Patent”)
`
`3.1.1
`
`Claim Term 1: “base”
`
`13.
`
`In the ‘979 Patent, the claim term “base” is found in independent Claims 28, 34,
`
`44, 56, 97, and 125, as well as dependent Claims 37, 45, 48, 57, 63, 98, 102, and 126.
`
`14.
`
`Having reviewed the ‘979 Patent, including the claim language as a whole, the
`
`specification, its prosecution history and reviewing the function and structure of the patented
`
`device, it is my opinion that the term “base” should be construed as “a unique, discreet member
`
`from which other parts attach or extend.” This is an important functional aspect of the device
`
`itself as there is a physical base of the device from which other functional elements of the device
`
`are dependent for its function.
`
`3.1.2
`
`Claim Term 2: “drive means”
`
`15.
`
`In the ‘979 Patent, the claim term “drive means” is found in independent Claims
`
`28, 34, 44, 97, and 125, and dependent Claims 48, 52, 53, 57, 63, 98, 102, 106, 126.
`
`16.
`
`As discussed in the Legal Standard section above, it is my understanding that
`
`there is a presumption that 35 U.S.C. §112, fi[6 applies when the term “means” is used. It is also
`
`my understanding that the Plaintiffs contend that the claim includes sufficient structure to
`
`perform the function asserted in each of the claims. Having reviewed the ‘979 Patent, including
`
`the claim language as a whole, the specification, its prosecution history and reviewing the
`
`function and structure of the device, it is my opinion that the term “drive means” should include
`
`structural information about the gear arrangement and be related to the actuation, or initiation, of
`
`motion. This is particularly important given the prosecution history of the ‘979 Patent and the
`
`necessary gear structure to achieve patentability over prior art for the pronation and/or supination
`
`motion of the forearm. Functional gear language is provided in Table 1 for the relevant ‘979
`
`claims identified above.
`
`17.
`
`It is noted that in independent Claims 44 and 97, although the term “drive means”
`
`is used, there is no mechanism for driving, or initiating motion. The structure being described is
`
`5
`
`LANTZ 1005.9
`
`

`
`a pivot connection and there is no language in these claims that indicates a method of actuation.
`
`Therefore it is difficult to apply the Plaintiffs construction of the term “drive means” (a
`
`mechanism designed or constructed to transfer power from one part to another) when the
`
`language of the claim is merely conveying the ability to pivot and not a means by which this
`
`action is initiated, or driven.
`
`18.
`
`It should also be noted that Claim 126 (dependent on Claim 125), includes a
`
`“second drive means” which is referring to a rack and pinion type drive assembly as shown in
`
`Figure 11 (Element 300) or a screw and nut type drive assembly shown in Figure 12 of the ‘979
`
`Patent.
`
`LANTZ 1005.10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.HO.wNAWOEOEHHCOHEmowwHEU_>O.HQumowmmofiGM2338Showofi.HO.wEmbmcmDEDMF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`owncwnnwnEMNHU_§_w_.o
`
`
`
`
`
`mmu.-E.~E§>.@xmMQNQ§.2\RkwrmknowNdsotusxrfifir:mmcsmscfiSENDEmmofioxk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mccfiwnfimEamEoummoEoEmanEmocoacooccbnEoEo>oEo>EE2mE8oEoEomcSESE9?s<.wm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEEH38EcoE8oom€23amoEcoofimocoupon“E55mmsaanmSEmcmofiEcoEEEdownawEE§Eoo
`
`
`
`
`
`E3downEmmEE3EfioocqooEEH88EcoEaooomE8daemonofiEoFEMofiEo5:3Eonficcmwqagcw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EOEE338Eco«EmEamE3own:E3E5»uouooccooE32:o>EuEEBEo>EUEmm.EoEmmofiEoPamofiEosoupom832ofimac?Eosoaxo«SE3ExxEmEonsownsEmm8o>EE8ESEEcoEEEEmmwEu8oE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EENEE.&N.~«S.cm.8m::o.oE€33Echocuxc20.50%cm:.§%8\§mE\o53:686:93ScEh:boom5%E3:3E:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§mE3365.3»NommcmsmAroméo.98ESEEca.Em>.cSmxw:coE~m§.o§E»Qo.8n$.23m3SE§EE8Ecmfiawxmo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:3&3EcoEammo?cE_§o%.%\Sc.EcmdEomN.8
`
`
`
`EEBEEco..EEESEEKo3SS8EE3EH38EcoEEEmmEEKwoaooqqooEEEE3cooEma:cu.mowEoE
`
`
`
`EmmbooEmEEmmEE3EoEonsoEEmoEEwomommsoEEEEBSow.E8oommESownsE38©>C§®.~
`
`
`
`.33E3EmmooohosfioomoEu:EtmEmoimESoESoom
`
`
`
`
`
`o>E.oES3..EEoEEcoHEEE8mafiaSEE535Eco«BEEmacanown:Ema.53Eowooncoomcnofio>Ec
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEESEEcoESoomucosmmwEochmECOcoupono‘E§>mwqaacmSEEEBEEcoEEEdownamEEEEoo
`
`
`
`E3RomanEmmEEKEoopooncooEESEEcowsooomE395:8ofiE0E3BEEocoupon3%:somaaaow
`
`
`
`EESEEE8aoozfionEEESEmEEEBEEcoEEEE38EfiooccooEEEE3SoE2:mmEoc_oEESE
`
`
`
`
`
`oaoEmEEmmEBEoEoanoEEmoEEEomoE.EE3ommnEmmnocoEcoE3388EEEEBEmuESoommEEmEEBEEcoHEEE3E0E550EbE8oom
`
`
`
`.aE\.c.EwSfimuoostcoE&.o.§§mNQk.~QcaxoEEEQRcmEs3.§§\oA936o.8c.9ESESE»xcmm.someE3:33:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m=§&%EmmJcoummamoahaanEmesonEooccomEoEo>oEo>EE8mEoboEoEomcSEmcufiwofimc<.vm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.cEEoEomo
`
`9&5Efio
`
`Gcowaomound
`
`mm
`
`Sconce$953
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NoomcmmmAmomhwoEtcmscmfiumxso§u$\.Scw\owsotxoficctm.§BomnESE§.~\..6.~G,nnmmxfioa:o.Qco&G.8wscmomswxco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2$23EcwsoEEESSA3333E«E53§mSE636$.23
`
`LANTZ 1005.11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`000:E00:836000088000:00803.30080r.AHOULOQ00:30008008000800808000,500002005000800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03080050800#0530900080080800809000800800:0000308350:<.0.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`08808380300800008080000808080080380800800083in80688.0000.00000880050E.00
`
`
`
`0:008$5000.5800w80000._.800:008E5000.58000:0
`
`
`
`
`
`...08000808E00000x5058008305800000088800880000.0800_0800003E0083000008000
`
`
`
`
`
`00830000000$000800.030.83038009x028.80%0ME3E0\§000\0A0300003000:05.0380%0008E050E:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8830000080008808300080800008080380800800083.3088080880000000008000308<.m.n.08008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0_883800“.0000808800:83808000808800880000.0:00880838.83008008008080008.0800
`
`2.80008080328008000800
`
`
`
`
`
`:30000002000.0000%E08E00@0000.800£0.030000020000.080.53000%E00
`
`
`
`
`
`00858000830000000000.080.83808009x000.50%0MEE00\§000\033:00003000:0E03000%:00?E080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`80E000038800800085083000000080800000808E0088380830808800880000.0808808
`
`
`
`
`
`:830000008000_8083000808000080808008038080080008330880880800000080000308<.mm
`
`
`
`8.83000080800883080080880800800E3000328008000800830000000808008008$80005800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:5:00080080.03:03.8000.00%3:0308300000008000800:0%§~00§~\\E.0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8850.0008.030000000000.0£0.33088000x020.50%0ME:E0\§000\0A0300003000:0£0.03000%200008080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0.0£0.83000%3:03008080800§3\0:00§0930_800...§00u.m\:00038:0008008A388?0.0.0800:00§%\00
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:8.00%808.8008.03_00MOM:08000.?
`
`LANTZ 1005.12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0300SSOME.03000000003000000003000030300.«O00030000000000USN0000.00300Sw>OE.HO,w000303000000030000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`000000USN00,0000000000000000000®>.T~6000303003.H®£HE3,w00303003300000000000300003054¢
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0.303000300$,wO00030000000000U6500,003000000000003uEmO..06$UCODOw00003HOHOOGEOO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`030M033000000330000000000000000030003A0>030000300000300030003000000000300030000030003.03%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00000000003H0030003000003000303000030300000030300003000000030003000030000030000030000030030_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0300090.003300003000000300300300000300000000:030003000030030003000000000.3mm?03003008,000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00200390303.00m3000m3_03030303300000003000930000003000000000000.03mum,030.00Sam000000333200000303030003300000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`030M03300000033000000000000000003003A0>0n_00003000030003000030000000300000.0000030003003.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mum“030030000.00000000000003%00300030:00003000303000.0300000000303000030003000030030000000000000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0303000003000000000300093003500003000000200030000000300000000:0300030000300300030003000000..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mum”030,00N32:0000303030330000000300090000000300000003000amm?03000Sow000000353000%
`
`.3000._
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0003000003030000000300000000000000000.0030000030030000000300003003000300000000,0000303000000030000000000000000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`000000030330300000030N0030.0500003000000000000000000000.003030330000000000030330030.00Gm003030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`000000000w030030000000030300000.00300303300030030030000000>0000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0000000000000.003003033000000000030000003200000003wm0030300330000000000000000300<.3mm000000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LANTZ 1005.13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`ofir:NoomomcoAncooxwoMn€33EchoosxocomxocqoM:.:§o\S0mc\oRois363.05»co5::$00sumoRES5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:033E5.803.23?03333MN30%E3:of30%:RoomSEQ
`
`
`
`03.8ocw"003E3E3o0oo0ccoommmcm0ccEcoocoo0mESuc0E~n08noccm08nocouconconnccomcaccm
`
`
`
`0&3E880>_§0cmcm0ccEcoomcmEamwcufiocconmccoccEco00.5Emawcn00.3E00:33Ezooccoomcm0E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc0cmn05noEco05nocouconc03o_ocowconmmEc0E0coE3303cmEon?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mcmomcocmocncnomcouconoc0nfimmoarmmc00ccEcocwcmEmmc_0c0c3mm850cwctoccH00mmmccmcwnnoc<.3mm
`
`
`
`
`
`888on093E880>E£0c03888mmcoE3E00m0EcocEmcm0cc03%Emmuc0umn05noccm0%‘cwm0co.cc0oc0n0Qv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cocobuocE030.08no8.80%‘Em0con_mcsowcnocmac?05nomcocco.wc0nfimmo05ESmcm0ccacncocmcnEomAnaEEOco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`._.c0Ewn05nochmoccnocouconc03205mconmmoc0E0coE3£0805ccoco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ccwcc0moocnocwmcm0cc03%EmmcE0c0c3noSE305cton_.0mmmmccocmnnmc<.mo_NonEmmcmouccmccEmmHE3cc0cc0umuc0ucEm0ccc_o0mo.m:oEocm093EamnocouoomcmcmEmmcE3w0co0ccoococc0oc0n0QvEcoE3«E030ocmcs0
`
`
`
`U0co0ccooE30”cc“_A3EEO
`
`
`
`
`
`2.58%Eom€230noEcocmc_m0con_mcco0nn0cm0m:conmccmcmnnmc<.3.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conmcwdacEcoocoo0m€330noEco05nococconRC30wacccwconmc00cc«Ecoomcndmmn0wcmmtnccooGc0oc0n0ocU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`65::E0005Ancooxwo,3£033EchoouxocomcoawoME§xo\§00c\oAniamconoxotofr:‘Sow.cocfioREEoE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:....omB0::ooan$00REEEco.023.o.:ou\ococooncmxmwnowowfir:moocooccooMN$33$00SE0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cE3o0co0ccooEcoE3$0cmmnc0m0w3ocEmcm.0cc03.6EomcE0c0c3nocccflocmEconc0mmmm=§&%c<donwon
`
`
`
`.cm0ucficcEmm£fi>>cc0cc0nmuc0ucEm0cccw_o0mo.msoEcoE3ccco30wcmmcm0cc(EcocmcmEmmcocc0noc0n0Qv
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`cE,c\.o.En$.33moocooccooMNN\\U.:\\§Echooko:o.§on.cm.c.:§o\§m.0c~\oAniaocoaoxocofir:30%cmmoE3:o
`
`A3
`
`
`
`
`
`2comm$33a~\\.~.§A.$mcm§AncooénoE3w:o0E\\ao
`
`LANTZ 1005.14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mm533one:88omowfiofi2:38o>EoES8.3ofimocouponS322%wqofimucous£01.39mun».anEons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§S<bo.EwfirsNomuomsmouMN£o.§§mwohoosxo§.S§§m:.§$.§$roRoismhoxoxoSQfr:§m23%:.SES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eon:38Bow££>>Eofioumuqou:EmoEEoomo.Evmm5338.83mwasmcmofiboo$53%£fi>>ooooosmoo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`éxm833%86:8.»mwcooxo533winsoSomeo3S§.oommEH03E3
`
`
`
`
`
`2MNgummySE03.33somm3:9:3fir:.§m%§\€oE.N.oESQwmomsmsmxso
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USNowns33UoaoossoomnnofiO>m.~UcnooomwfiwfiofioontsmQbmfiohi£tO,wwowmomfifimmmmE<
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`monowO>TDE»Sonsoofio£060Owo>..B‘d~®.Hmafia;«,H3oHo..5USN.H®>>O#33Q8wQ®E®>OE_So>_.SofieOw2330.O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ma.EooumooobdosbmoakdouofiwmuofimRtw£>EoHowEmsommommEm6oE>oEHo:2aouofimauofimon
`
`
`
`
`
`wE>EoMomofiflmaommooofisosbmm5:5Ao>on_moofiiowcsvooE>o_a_mmmcmofio>Eowmooom23moaouoqsmBEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACDURQ2:,MO95$ofimac?mwmouxomono06$OwoBo>m§.smwmopxo
`
`
`
`
`
`ownsBow8o>uw_82808tooEmE3wcufioohow2:38$33.5Emawas«man3%53..u8oo::oo2:38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`o>_.€camdmmn38SEwooooccoomm9:88toowcooomE3n...5_§2:88sumofmococoonsea:asmqaofiw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mfifinofiwEmm€33mwo8.3anEmasono>_§8w%,§%Eom:Mommfifimnfim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Smmqmofi,rSowsooom€33amo8.5ofimocouponEH3mmanacmMom2:85Eco“momdmmnmwfimflmfioo959533:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mmbnfiommm9E625mournwasMomsamoafimfimaoofio>Eowcooomaofimousse?soumomtoommE33on?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.32&5EEsonmEnfiommmo>Eo093E:93388agoSomE08232ooswfiESsonm
`
`Z
`
`LANTZ 1005.15
`
`
`

`
`3.1.3
`
`Claim Term 3: “a main gear which is connected with said first
`
`cuff means and is rotatable with said first cuff means relative to said base”
`
`19.
`
`In the ‘979 Patent, the claim term "a main gear which is connected with said first
`
`cuff means and is rotatable with said first cuff means relative to said base" is found in
`
`independent Claim 28.
`
`20.
`
`Having reviewed the ‘979 Patent, including the claim language as a whole, the
`
`specification, its prosecution history and reviewing the function and structure of the patented
`
`device, it is my opinion that the claim term “a main gear which is connected with said first cuff
`
`means and is rotatable with said first cuff means relative to said base” should be construed to
`
`mean that the first cuff extends through the main gear, which is connected to the first cuff and is
`
`rotatable with the first cuff relative to the base. This is the distinct feature that the ‘979 Patent
`
`device offers for therapeutic benefit of the device as compared to other prior art3’4 and is shown
`
`in Figure 11 of the ‘979 Patent where the “main gear is at least partially enclosing a portion of
`
`the first cuff and disposed between the first and second end portions of the first cuff.”
`
`3.1.4
`
`Claim Term 4: “second gear is at least partially disposed in a
`
`recess in said base”
`
`21.
`
`In the ‘979 Patent, the claim term "second gear is at least partially disposed in a
`
`recess in said base” is found in independent Claim 28.
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would understand the claim term without any additional explanation or interpretation, but it does
`
`require a functional definition of the term “base”, which is discussed in Section 3.1.1.
`
`3.1.5
`
`Claim Term 5: “gear means”
`
`23.
`
`In the ‘979 Patent, the claim term "gear means" is found in independent Claim 56
`
`and dependent Claim 63.
`
`24.
`
`As discussed in the Legal Standard section above, it is my understanding that
`
`there is a presumption that 35 U.S.C. §l 12, 1l6 applies when the term “means” is used. It is also
`
`3 Hotchkiss, R. U.S. Patent 5,372,597, 1994
`4 File history for U.S. Patent No. 5,848,979
`
`12
`
`LANTZ 1005.16
`
`

`
`my understanding that the Plaintiffs contend that the claim includes sufficient structure to
`
`perform the function of “rotating said first cuff about an axis which extends through the first
`
`portion of the patient’s body and through the joint interconnecting the first and second portion of
`
`the patient’s body.”5 Specifically, the claims include “a worm which is rotatably mounted on said
`
`base for rotation about an axis which extends transverse to the axis which extends through the
`
`first body portion of the patient’s body, and a main gear (emphasis added) disposed in meshing
`
`engagement with said worm and connected with said first cuff.”6
`
`25.
`
`The structure of the “main gear” is of functional importance to the ‘979 Patent.
`
`The main gear is unique feature of the ‘979 Patent and is described as such in the prosecution
`
`history as “a gear having teeth disposed in an arcuate array. The arcuate array of gear teeth forms
`
`only a pm of a circle and has spaced apart end portions. The gear has an gpgning which
`
`extends through a peripheral portion of the gear and between the end portions of the arcuate
`
`array of gear teeth.”7 (Please note that the underlined words are contained in the original
`
`prosecution history of the ‘979 Patent.) This description is not the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`a “main gear”. Therefore, it is my opinion that the phrase be construed to mean “an open gear
`
`with an arcuate array of teeth forming a portion of a circle.”
`
`5 See ‘979 Patent. Claim 56, lines 46-49.
`6See‘979PamnL(Hann56,hnes5065.
`7 File history for U.S. Patent No. 5,848,979, page 189.
`13
`
`LANTZ 1005.17
`
`

`
`3.2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,112,179 (“the ‘179 Patent”)
`
`26.
`
`The orthosis in the ‘ 179 Patent is a device for providing joint flexion or extension.
`
`The ‘179 device is attached to two body segments which move relative to each other in a flexion
`
`or extension motion (i.e. bending or straightening). The flexion or extension motion of the joint
`
`is achieved through the coupled motion of extension members (which are attached to the body
`
`segments) along an arcuate path integral to one of the extension members. Specifically, the first
`
`extension member translates and rotates along the arcuate path provided by the second extension
`
`member. This interaction is critical for the flexion or extension functionality of the device and
`
`the potential therapeutic benefits of the device.
`
`3.2.1 Claim Term 1: “orthosis for stretching tissue around a joint of a
`
`patient between first and second relatively pivotal body portions”
`
`27.
`
`In the ‘ 179 Patent, claim language “orthosis for stretching tissue around a joint of
`
`a patient between first and second relatively pivotal body portions” is found in the preamble of
`
`independent Claim 26.
`
`28.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would have readily understood that the term “orthosis” would indicate “an external orthopedic
`
`appliance, as a brace or splint that prevents or assists movement of the spine or limbs”.8 In my
`
`opinion, the phrase “for stretching tissues. . .body portions” serves to clarify the function of the
`
`“orthosis” for the patent, but does not redefine the term to mean “a device designed or
`
`constructed to stretch tissue around a join .”
`
`3.2.2 Claim Term 2: “first extension member”
`
`29.
`
`In Claim 26 of the ‘ 179 Patent, the “first extension member” is a fundamental
`
`element of the intended device as it is required for the device to function effectively.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, the claim language “first extension member” should be construed
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §l l2, 1l6 despite the lack of the term “means” because the language
`
`implies to a person having ordinary skill in the art that there is a physical structure with a
`
`functional aspect where the position of the first extension member is important for the overall
`
`8 See “orthosis” in Stedman’s Concise Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions, 4”‘ ed., 2001 (Appendix A)
`14
`
`LANTZ 1005.18
`
`

`
`efficacy of the device. Based on the detailed description provided in the ‘ 179 Patent, the
`
`language “first extension member” should be construed to mean “a physical member that extends
`
`directly from the first arm member at an angle other than l80 degrees as measured within a plane
`
`perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the join .”
`
`31.
`
`However, if the “first extension member” is not considered to be a “means-plus-
`
`function” limitation, it is still my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have inferred the meaning of the phrase “first extension member” from the context of the
`
`specification to mean more than “a part that extends, or extends from, the first arm member” as
`
`offered by the Plaintiffs.9 In my opinion, this definition was foundational information to be
`
`informed by the details in the specification since no additional information on the physical
`
`orientation of the “first extension member” was provided in the claim limitation itself.
`
`3.2.3 Claim Term 3: “second extension member having an arcuate shape
`
`extending therefrom”
`
`32.
`
`In Claim 26 of the ‘ 179 Patent, the “second extension member having an arcuate
`
`shape extending therefrom” is another fundamental element of the intended device as it is
`
`required for the device to function effectively.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, this claim language should be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§l 12, 1l6 despite the lack of the term “means” because the language implies a structural member
`
`to a person with ordinary skill in the art. In my opinion, the “arcuate shape” extension is a
`
`functional description of the second extension member, particularly since this description is
`
`fundamental to the function of the orthosis. The phrase “second extension member having an
`
`arcuate shape extending therefrom” should be construed to mean “a non-circular, non-linear
`
`structure that extends outwardly from an arm member in a plane perpendicular to the axis of
`
`rotation of the joint and that has defined end points and that provides an axis of rotation for the
`
`joint that changes as the first and second arm members move relative to one another and where
`
`the second arm member exhibits both rotation about the joint axis and translation relative to the
`
`first arm member as the first and second arm members are moved relative to one another.” The
`
`9 Plaintiffs‘ Preliminary Proposed Construction of Each Disputed Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause and Preliminary
`Disclosure of Extrinsic Evidence, issued January 23, 2015
`15
`
`LANTZ 1005.19
`
`

`
`offered phrase, while lengthy, is the meaning that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have developed from the context of the patent specification.
`
`34.
`
`However, if the phrase “second extension member having an arcuate shape
`
`extending therefrom” is not considered to be a “means—plus~function” limitation, it is still my
`
`opinion that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`
`inferred the proposed meaning of the phrase “second extension member” from the context of the
`
`patent specification.
`
`3.2.4 Claim Term 4: “arcuate shape”
`
`35.
`
`In the ‘ 179 Patent, the claim term “arcuate shape” is asserted in independent
`
`Claim 26. The term “arcuate shape” is part of the claim term analyzed in Section 3.2.3 above,
`
`“second extension member having an arcuate shape extending therefrom” and the “arcuate
`
`shape” of the second extension member is fundamental to the function of the device.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, the claim language should be construed pursuant to 35 USC § l l2,
`
`1l6 despite the lack of the term “means” based on the detailed description that accompanies
`
`Figure l0, Element 44: “the second arm member is shown having a non—circular arcuate shaped
`
`second extension member. The non—circular arcuate shaped second extension member provide
`
`[sic] an axis of rotation which changes as the second arm member is moved from the first
`
`position to the second position”. The detailed description provides a function for the arcuate
`
`shape of the second extension member. Therefore, it is my opinion that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would construe the phrase “arcuate shape” to mean “a non-circular, non-linear
`
`element having a defined first end and a defined second end.”
`
`37.
`
`However, if the phrase “arcuate shape” is not considered to be a “means-plus-
`
`function” limitation, it is still my opinion that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention would have construed the phrase “arcuate shape” to mean a “non—circular, non-
`
`linear element having a defined first end and a defined second end” from the context of the
`
`patent specification.
`
`l6
`
`LANTZ 1005.20
`
`

`
`3.2.5 Claim Term 5: “arcuate path”
`
`38.
`
`In the ‘ l79 Patent, the claim term “arcuate path” is found in independent Claim
`
`26. Having reviewed the ‘ l79 Patent, including the claim language as a whole, the specification,
`
`prosecution history and the extrinsic evidence, it is my opinion that a person with ordinary skill
`
`in the art would construe “arcuate path” to mean “a path defined by an arcuate shape”, where
`
`“arcuate shape” has been previously defined in Section 3.2.4 above.
`
`3.2.6 Claim Term 6: “travels along an arcuate path through the first
`
`extension member”
`
`39.
`
`In the ‘ l79 Patent, the claim term “travels along an arcuate path through the first
`
`extension member” is found in independent Claim 26. This claim term defines the orientation
`
`and movement of the first and second extension members and is fundamental to the efficacy of
`
`the device. In order for the device to provide therapeutic benefits, the first extension member
`
`must translate and rotate along the arcuate path provided by the second extension member.
`
`40.
`
`Having reviewed the ‘ 179 Patent, including the claim language as a whole, the
`
`specification, prosecution history and the extrinsic evidence, it is my opinion that a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would construe the phrase “travels along an arcuate path through the first
`
`extension member” (emphasis added) to mean that “the first extension member travels along an
`
`arcuate path into one side of the second extension member through an opening (or cha