`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`NIPRO CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NXSTAGE MEDICAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)
`
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE DECISION ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
`NOT ESTABLISH THAT MINAMI TEACHES A DEVICE THAT
`INCLUDES PRESSURE TUBING ATTACHED TO A PRESSURE
`POD OR AIR CHAMBER “AS A SEALED UNIT.” .................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Decision overlooked the Petition’s arguments about Minami’s
`pressure measurement mechanism, which necessarily requires a sealed
`connection between the pressure tube and the pressure
`sensing/transmitting pod. ...................................................................... 3
`
`The Decision misapprehended the purpose of Minami’s injector. ....... 9
`
`The Decision misapprehended Minami’s disclosure regarding other
`connections being “sealed” and “integral.” ......................................... 10
`
`D.
`
`The Decision overlooked the pressure fit shown in Minami .............. 12
`
`III. THE DECISION ERRED IN APPLYING AN ANTICIPATION
`ANALYSIS TO CLAIMS 13 AND 23. ........................................................ 14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
` ii
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Nipro Corporation (“Petitioner”) hereby requests rehearing of the Board’s
`
`Decision (Paper No. 11, entered July 28, 2016; “Dec.”). The Board reviews a
`
`request for rehearing for abuse of discretion, which “occurs when a court
`
`misunderstands or misapplies the relevant law or makes clearly erroneous findings
`
`of fact.” Renda Marine, Inc. v. U.S., 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As set
`
`forth below, that standard is met.
`
`According to the Decision, the distinguishing feature of the ‘414 claims over
`
`Minami is an “integral” connection between a pressure tube and a pressure pod—a
`
`term not found in the ‘414 specification, but which was first introduced by Patent
`
`Owner during prosecution. Ex. 1010. The Decision disagreed with Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction of the term “integral.” Rather than adopt the plain
`
`meaning—which would require only that the pressure tube be formed “as a unit”
`
`with the pressure pod (see Pet., 16)— the Board construed “integral” to require a
`
`“seal” limitation based upon the ‘414 specification, finding that the claims require
`
`that the pressure tube be formed “as a sealed unit” with the pressure pod. Dec., 12.
`
`The Decision overlooked arguments in the Petition establishing that Minami
`
`(Ex. 1012, translation at Ex. 1013), to be operative for its intended purpose,
`
`necessarily discloses that its pressure tubing is attached to its pressure pod or air
`
`chamber as a sealed unit. As the Board commented in IPR2015-01454, where it
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`found that a prior art reference’s disclosure of a “computing device” necessarily
`
`included a computer processor and memory even though not explicitly recited
`
`therein, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out
`
`all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the
`
`art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or
`
`combination.” Paper No. 15 at p. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing
`
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015)). The same is true here, where Minami’s disclosure of a pressure sensor to
`
`measure pressure in a remote pressure pod via a pressure tube necessarily includes
`
`a sealed connection that one of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage”
`
`between the tube and pressure pod.
`
`While the Decision stated that the Petition does not “show sufficiently” a
`
`“sealed” connection in Minami because Petitioner focused on a different claim
`
`construction only requiring direct attachment (Dec., 14), the Board overlooked that
`
`a sealed connection would necessarily be required by the Petition’s arguments
`
`about the pressure measurement mechanism of Minami. Even if the Board
`
`adopts an initial claim construction that differs from the Petition, the Board must
`
`still consider all of the Petition’s arguments in relation to a particular claim
`
`limitation, examining those arguments in the light of what would be “at once
`
`envisaged” by one of ordinary skill in the art as to the newly adopted construction.
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`II. THE DECISION ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
`NOT ESTABLISH THAT MINAMI TEACHES A DEVICE THAT
`INCLUDES PRESSURE TUBING ATTACHED TO A PRESSURE POD OR
`AIR CHAMBER “AS A SEALED UNIT.”
`A. The Decision overlooked the Petition’s arguments about Minami’s
`pressure measurement mechanism, which necessarily requires a sealed
`connection between the pressure tube and the pressure
`sensing/transmitting pod.
`
`In construing the term “integral” as requiring attachment “as a sealed unit,”
`
`the Decision relies on several sections of the ‘414 patent describing the mechanism
`
`by which pressure sensing occurs in the ‘414 device, including the following:
`
`Movement of the diaphragm between the first and second positions is
`restricted by the fact that, in the pressure sensing process, a sealed,
`fixed volume of air exists between the diaphragm and a pressure
`sensing transducer, with the branch line pressure tubing extending
`therebetween. Thus, movement of the diaphragm toward one position
`or another position will reflect a change of the level of compression of
`the air or other compressible fluid in the fluid flow path between the
`diaphragm and the pressure sensing transducer, thus transmitting the
`pressure of the blood to the transducer.
`Ex. 1001, 5:14-23. The sealed attachment between the various parts of the
`
`‘414 device is for ensuring an existence of “fixed volume of air,” which in
`
`turn is for transmitting the blood pressure to the transducer. A change of
`
`the blood pressure in the pressure pod causes movement of a diaphragm,
`
`which causes a change of the level of compression of air in the path between
`
`the diaphragm and the transducer, which transmit the blood pressure to the
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`transducer. That is, air pressure in the tube and air chamber of the pressure
`
`pod will change until equilibrium with the blood pressure is established.
`
`
`
`However, the Decision overlooked the Petition’s arguments that Minami’s
`
`system works by the exact same mechanism. For example, the Petition explains
`
`that “the air chamber b is in communication with a pressure gauge 22 via a
`
`pressure tube 20, so that the pressure pod 25 can be located remote from the
`
`pressure gauge 22.” Pet., 9; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31. Minami states:
`
`During the dialysis performed with blood pump 2 being rotated, blood
`is circulated in respective blood chambers a. Then, diaphragm 12 is
`dilated toward air chamber b by the pressure of blood. The capacity of
`air chamber b accordingly decreases and air pressure therein
`correspondingly increases, resulting in equilibrium. The pressure of
`blood can be known by measuring the air pressure at the time by
`pressure gauge 22.
`
`Ex. 1013, ¶ [0011] (emphasis added) (cited in Pet. at 9, 21, 22, 26, 30, 48, and 52).
`
`
`
`In other words, in both the ‘414 patent and Minami, a blood pressure is
`
`measured by a transducer (pressure gauge) by the following mechanism: when
`
`blood pressure increases, a diaphragm is moved toward the air chamber. Due to
`
`the movement of the diaphragm, the total volume in the pressure tube and pressure
`
`pod air chamber goes down, and pressure of the air in the pressure tube and
`
`pressure pod air chamber goes up, and vice versa. The air pressure changes until
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`equilibrium with the blood pressure is established. Thus, a blood pressure is
`
`transmitted to the transducer.
`
`
`
`A fundamental requirement for this mechanism is that there is an inverse
`
`relation between the volume of air and the pressure of air. This inverse relation
`
`only exists if there is a fixed mass of air in the pressure tube and pressure pod,
`
`which necessarily requires sealing. Both the ‘414 system and the Minami system
`
`operate based on this fundamental law of nature governing the relationship
`
`between pressure and volume, known as Boyle’s law, which is described by
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Clemens, as follows:
`
`According to Boyle’s law, the product of pressure and volume is
`constant for a given mass of confined gas, assuming a constant
`temperature. Thus, the product of (i) the total volume in a pressure
`pod air chamber plus the total volume in a connected pressure tube,
`and (ii) the pressure in the pressure pod air chamber and pressure
`tube, is constant.
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 133 (emphasis added). As explained by Mr. Clemens, Boyle’s law
`
`applies “for a given mass of a confined gas.” Without sealed connections
`
`between the pressure gauge, tube, and pressure pod, there would be no “confined
`
`gas,” Boyle’s law would not apply, the equilibrium between the blood pressure and
`
`the air pressure would not be established, and the mechanism by which both the
`
`‘414 system and the Minami system measure blood pressure would cease to exist.
`
`
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`Consequently, Mr. Clemens’ Declaration establishes that Minami necessarily
`
`requires its pressure tube 20 and its container 11 be connected “as a sealed unit.”
`
`
`
`In fact, Patent Owner admits that such a sealed connection is necessary in
`
`systems having pressure pods that are located remotely from a pressure sensor,
`
`stating that “for the pressure measuring equipment to function properly in the
`
`invention, a sealed air-mass must exist,” that “the remotely-positioned pressure
`
`measuring devices (41 and 43) require a sealed air-mass to accurately measure
`
`pressure in the pod,” and that “[p]ositioning the pod remotely from the
`
`measuring device as claimed thus requires the ‘integral attachment’ to seal
`
`together as a unit the pressure tubing and the pod’s air chamber, sealing
`
`together the air-masses inside of them to achieve accurate measurements.”
`
`Prelim. Resp., 15-17. While Patent Owner refers to the mechanism “in the
`
`invention,” there is nothing different about the ‘414 system relative to the Minami
`
`system that would “require a sealed air-mass” to accurately measure pressure in the
`
`pod. Rather, Patent Owner’s statements about the requirement of a sealed air-mass
`
`apply equally any system operating with Boyle’s law as the mechanism to measure
`
`pressure within a pressure pod. This includes the Minami system, as is clear from
`
`Mr. Clemens’ explanation of Boyle’s law with respect to that system. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`133.
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`The Petition also discussed the operating requirements for dialysis, the
`
`intended use of both the ‘414 system and the Minami system. See Pet., 4, 9, 11,
`
`12, 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:6-54 and Ex. 1013, ¶¶ [0009]-[0011]); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 29,
`
`31. When the pressure of blood exceeds a certain value (about 500 mmHg) or falls
`
`below a certain value (about -400 mmHg), the blood can be damaged. Pet., 4; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 14. Thus, measuring pressure is important for monitoring a patient's blood
`
`pressure during dialysis procedures, which often last many hours. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1015, 1:35-39 (referring to the “normal four to six hour hemodialysis treatment”).
`
`During the extended period of a dialysis procedure, even a small air leak at the
`
`connection between the pressure tube and the pressure pod would lead to an
`
`inability of the pressure gauge to measure the blood pressure. This is because
`
`both the '414 patent and Minami system require a fixed mass of air for pressure
`
`measurement. Ex. 1013, ¶ [0011] (cited in Pet. at pp. 9, 21, 22, 26, 30, 48, and 52).
`
`The long time periods involved with dialysis mean that sealing is necessary to
`
`maintain the integrity of the pressure measurements. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:20-25
`
`(stating that pressure measurement “on preferably a moment-by-moment, real time
`
`basis . . . is important in the field of extracorporeal blood handling.”). If any leak
`
`of air exists, the mass of air will not be fixed during the extended period of dialysis,
`
`and the mechanism for blood pressure measurement will be lost.
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`Thus, when Minami states that its dialysis system “solve[s] the various
`
`problems associated with the use of such an air chamber by enabling pressure
`
`measurement,” it teaches that the connections between its pressure sensor 22,
`
`pressure tube 20, and container 11 of pressure pod 25 are necessarily sealed
`
`connections. Ex. 1013, ¶ [0006]. Put another way, if the Minami device enables
`
`pressure measurement, then the connection between the tube 20 and the container
`
`11 must be sealed enough to allow the device to operate.
`
`
`
`In In re Shoner, the Federal Circuit addressed a similar situation and found
`
`that “[Patent Owner] does not dispute that [the prior art reference] teaches an air
`
`chamber, 10, that is ‘pressurized.’ Although [the prior art reference] does not
`
`disclose an inner tube or other structure in which to seal and pressurize the air
`
`chamber, the air chamber must be sealed, otherwise it could not be pressurized.”
`
`In re Shoner, 341 Fed. Appx. 642, 647 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The same is true here.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Minami teaches space including an air chamber
`
`b and a space within pressure tube 20 that is pressurized by movement of the
`
`diaphragm 12. Although Minami does not explicitly state that this space is sealed,
`
`it must be sealed, otherwise it could not be pressurized, and pressure could not be
`
`measured.
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`B.
`
`The Decision misapprehended the purpose of Minami’s injector.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s suggestion that the injectors 23a, 23b of Minami are used to
`
`replace air lost from chamber b during use is incorrect. Prelim. Resp., 49 (cited in
`
`Dec., 15). Minami explicitly states that the injectors 23a, 23b are for zeroing out
`
`the pressure gauge and for reduction of deformation of the diaphragm 12, neither
`
`of which occurs during blood pressure measurement. Ex. 1013, ¶ [0011] (cited in
`
`Pet., 9, 21, 22, 48, 52). Minami states that zeroing out the pressure gauge is
`
`performed [w]ith a blood pump 2 suspended.” Ex. 1013, ¶ [0011]. The reduction
`
`of deformation of the diaphragm is performed to prevent pressure overshoot, which
`
`would occur if the diaphragm contacted a wall of the air chamber, so that any
`
`further increase in pressure could not be measured. This procedure also cannot be
`
`done during a continuous measurement of blood pressure, because the clamp 24 of
`
`Minami, which is closed during pressure measurement to separate the injector 23
`
`from the air chamber (Ex. 1013, ¶ [0009]), must be opened to allow injection of air
`
`by the injector 23. If clamp 24 were open, blood pressure could not be measured
`
`because any movement of a diaphragm would simply cause movement of the
`
`plunger of the injector 23 instead of causing compression of air. After the position
`
`of the diaphragm is adjusted, the clamp is closed, thereby ensuring a fixed-mass of
`
`air during a continuous measurement of blood pressure. Ex. 1013, ¶ [0011].
`
`
`
`The injectors 23a, 23b are not used to address leaks at the connection
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`between the pressure tube and the pressure pod. On the contrary, the manner in
`
`which the injectors 23a, 23b are used further supports the fact that the connection
`
`between the pressure tube 20 and the pressure pod 25 is necessarily a sealed
`
`connection for Minami to be operative. The use of the injectors 23 indicates that
`
`the connection between the pressure tube 20 and pressure pod 25 is sealed.
`
`Without a sealed connection, air injected by the injector 23 would leak from the
`
`connection and would not cause an adjustment of the zero point or a reduction of
`
`the deformation of the diaphragm.
`
`C.
`The Decision misapprehended Minami’s disclosure regarding
`other connections being “sealed” and “integral.”
`
`
`
`The Decision incorrectly inferred that Minami’s use of the term “sealed” and
`
`“integral” in other contexts suggests that the connection between the pressure tube
`
`20 and the pressure pod 25 (specifically, port 16) is not sealed. As noted in the
`
`Decision, Minami refers to its pressure pod as including a “sealed container 11.”
`
`Ex. 1013, ¶ [0009] (cited in Pet., 9, 21, 22, 24, 29, 47, et al.) (cited in Dec., 13).
`
`Minami also states that “container 11 is composed of two container members 11a
`
`and 11b divided in halves in an identical shape and facing each other” and that,
`
`with the diaphragm 12 interposed therebetween, “[t]hese members are welded to
`
`one another to be tightly sealed.” Ex. 1013, ¶ [0010] (cited in Pet., 9, 21, 22, 47, et
`
`al.). Also as noted in the Decision, Minami describes the container 11 as being
`
`"integral" with the connection port 16. Ex. 1013, ¶ [0010] (cited in Dec., 15)
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`Minami does not suggest that other connections, such as the connection
`
`between pressure tube 20 and pressure pod 25, are not sealed. On the contrary,
`
`Minami’s disclosure that certain connections of the air path between the diaphragm
`
`12 and the pressure gauge 22 are "sealed" or "integral" suggests that the other
`
`connections of the same air path—i.e., the connections between the port 16 and the
`
`pressure tube 20, and between the pressure tube 20 and the pressure gauge 22—are
`
`also sealed. This is because "sealed" or "integral" formation of some connections
`
`of the air path would be a waste of effort if the other connections of the same air
`
`path are not sealed.
`
`
`
`As one specific example, Patent Owner does not dispute the assertion in the
`
`Petition and Declaration that Minami teaches that its pressure tube is “for sealed
`
`connection at its other end to a remote pressure connector.” Petition, 48; Decl., ¶
`
`129. It is illogical for the Decision to conclude that Minami has no seal on the
`
`pressure pod 25 side of the pressure tube 20 in the face of the undisputed evidence
`
`showing a sealed connection of the container 11, and a sealed connection on the
`
`pressure gauge 22 side of Minami’s pressure tube 20.
`
`
`
`Consequently, Minami implicitly teaches that the connection between the
`
`pressure tube 20 and the pressure pod 25 (specifically, port 16) is sealed. The
`
`Decision erred in failing to account for this implicit suggestion. See, e.g., In re
`
`Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
`
`teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
`
`reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). The proper test for anticipation is
`
`“whether one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains could take the
`
`description of the invention in the printed publication and combine it with his own
`
`knowledge of the particular art and from this combination be put in possession of
`
`the invention on which a patent is sought.” In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939
`
`(CCPA 1962). Minami satisfies this test.
`
`D. The Decision overlooked the pressure fit shown in Minami
`
`
`
`The Decision found that the figures of Minami “appear to depict a slip
`
`friction fit, which may or may not be sealed,” following the argument made by
`
`Patent Owner with respect to Figure 1 of Minami. Dec., 15; Prelim. Resp, ¶ 49.
`
`The Petition and Declaration relied on Figure 1 of Minami for teaching the integral
`
`attachment between the pressure tube and the pressure pod. Pet., 25; Decl. ¶¶ 73-
`
`75. However, the Decision overlooked the fact that Figure 1 of Minami shows that
`
`the connecting portion of the pressure tube 20 is expanded due to insertion of the
`
`wider connection port 16 of the pressure pod 25 into the narrower opening of the
`
`pressure tube 20. Below is a close-up of this connection from Figure 1 of Minami.
`
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶ 30.
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The expansion of the pressure tube 20 is plainly visible in Figure 1, indicating that
`
`the connection between the pressure tube 20 and the pressure pod 25 is not merely
`
`a “slip friction fit,” but rather a tight slip-on connection by pressure fit, which was
`
`known to a person of ordinary skill to be one way to establish a sealed connection.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1024, 30:30-37 (stating, with respect to connection in an
`
`extracorporeal blood set, “[i]t can be advantageous to have said connections made
`
`via standard Luer-lock fittings, tight slip-on connection, or through permanent
`
`connections . . . .”). In fact, the same tight slip-on connection is shown for the
`
`connections between the blood tube 18, 19 and the ports 14, 15. If the connection
`
`were not sealed, air could enter the blood when the blood pressure becomes
`
`negative during dialysis. (Pet., 4) Alternatively, where the blood pressure
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`becomes positive, blood could leak out of the extracorporeal blood set, putting the
`
`patient at great risk of blood loss. Thus, the connections are plainly sealed.
`
`III. THE DECISION ERRED IN APPLYING AN ANTICIPATION
`ANALYSIS TO CLAIMS 13 AND 23.
`
`The proposed ground of unpatentability for independent claims 13 and 23
`
`was not anticipation, but obviousness. Pet., 2. As to this ground, the Decision
`
`finds that, “[f]or the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, . . . the
`
`information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that this feature [a sealed attachment] is
`
`disclosed by Minami.” Dec., 17. Yet, the earlier “reasons discussed with respect
`
`to claim 1” cited by the Board for this part the Decision were all related to
`
`inherency, ending with the Board’s conclusion that “the Petition has not
`
`established that it is necessarily the case that Minami’s pressure tubing and
`
`chamber are attached as a sealed unit, precluding the escape of air from the air
`
`chamber” (emphasis in original) (Decision at p. 15).
`
`
`
`In performing an obviousness analysis, the question is not whether the seal
`
`“necessarily” is present in Minami, but rather, whether the seal would have been
`
`obvious from Minami. The prior art references must be “considered together with
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (U.S.
`
`2007). While Petitioner maintains that Minami necessarily discloses a seal for the
`
`reasons discussed above, when considered in the light of an obviousness grounds,
`
`the case for finding that a seal would be obvious based upon Minami is even
`
`stronger. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`provide a sealed connection between the pressure tube 20 and container 11 because
`
`such sealed connection is necessary in order to measure pressure using a pressure
`
`sensor that is attached to a remote pressure pod via a tube.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons discussed above, the Decision erred as a matter of
`
`fact in concluding that the Petition and Mr. Clemens’ Declaration did not
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that
`
`Minami discloses a device that includes pressure tubing integrally attached to a
`
`chamber or pod under the Board’s construction. Petitioner thus requests rehearing
`
`and institution of trial as to Grounds 1-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Aug. 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Stephen B. Maebius/
`
`
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`4841-6735-8007.1
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00744; Patent: 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing REQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D) and this Certificate of Service were
`
`served on Aug. 26, 2016 to NXSTAGE MEDICAL, INC. by electronic mail to:
`
`Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Benjamin Haber (Reg. No. 67,129)
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`NiproIPR@irell.com
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4841-6735-8007.1