`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`NeoChord, Inc.
`v.
`University of Maryland, Baltimore
`
`IPR2016-00208
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Oral Argument
`January 31, 2017
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`1
`
`
`
`Claim 19
`
`19 A method for treating a defective I]I1llZI'Eil er trienspid
`Valve, eemprising:
`pi:".1"l'.?Lll£.l11'$|.'Ill.‘*:‘-l},*' aeeeaairig an Eipltftll regieii el a heart with a
`catheter-based device; and
`repairing a cardiac valve by use ef said device,
`wherein the repairing eemprises replacing at least ene
`cherdae tendineae, and
`wherein the replaced eherdae tendineae CDII1pI'i5ES a suture
`with one er Inere leaflets ef the heart.
`
`(‘386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 22:6-14)
`(’386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 22:6-14)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`2
`2
`
`
`
`Proposed Constructions - “Percutaneously
`Accessing an Apical Region of a Heart”
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 2)
`
`(Petition (Paper 1) at 12; see also Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 12) at 3)
`3
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`The Specification
`
`(‘386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:35-44, see also Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 5)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`4
`
`
`
`The Specification
`
`****
`
`(‘386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 11:35-52, see also Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 3)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dictionary Definition
`
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 11), Exhibit 2007)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`6
`
`
`
`The Seldinger Technique is Performed
`Through Unbroken Skin
`
`****
`
`(Patent Owner Response (Paper 11), Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 40-41)
`7
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`The Seldinger Technique
`
`(Exhibit 2009; see also Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 8, Exhibit 2001 at ¶40, Exhibit 2010 at 2)
`8
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – Broader than Percutaneous
`
`(‘386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 20:41-52, emphasis added;
`see also Patent Owner Response (Paper 11), at 9)
`
`(‘386 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 22:6-14,
`emphasis added)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`9
`
`
`
`Speziali is not “percutaneous”
`
`(Petition (Paper 1) at 23, see also, Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 14)
`
`(Ex. 1006, 5:1-5, see also, Aklog Dep. Tr. at 20:8-23:4)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`10
`
`
`
`Lattouf is not “percutaneous”
`
`(Petition (Paper 1) at 34, see also, Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 27)
`
`(Ex. 1004, 2:35-39)
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`(Ex. 1004, 11:24-27)
`11
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine
`
`• Speziali and Bachman (Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 16-26)
`• Lattouf and Carpentier (Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 26-32)
`• Lattouf and Bachman (Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 33-40)
`• Lattouf and Downing (Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 41-44)
`• Lattouf, Carpentier and Downing
`
` (Patent Owner Response (Paper 11) at 49-50)
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`12
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`NeoChord, Inc.
`v.
`University of Maryland, Baltimore
`
`IPR2016-00208
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Oral Argument
`January 31, 2017
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`
`13
`
`