UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: March 15, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: March 15, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRAIG S. SUMMERS, ESQUIRE
`Knobbe Martens
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, California 92614
`949.760.0404
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`WALLACE WU, ESQUIRE
`Arnold Porter
`777 South Figuero Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`213.243.4104
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, March
`15, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE TARTAL: We are here for a final hearing in inter partes
`review case captioned Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Petitioner, versus
`Boston Scientific Scimed, Incorporated, Patent Owner, Case IPR
`2017-00444, concerning U.S. Patent Number 6,915,560 B2.
`Let me begin by introducing the panel. I'm joined by Judge Powell
`and Judge Margolies and I'm Judge Tartal. Can I please have the parties'
`appearances and we'll begin today with Petitioner.
`MR. SUMMERS: Good afternoon. My name is Craig Summers of
`Knobbe Martens. I'm here to present the argument today on behalf of the
`Petitioner, Edwards Lifesciences. With me today will be Josh Stole, my
`partner and my partner Christy Lee. I'd also like to introduce two in-house
`attorneys from Edwards Lifesciences who are here today. Keith Newberry,
`who is the vice-president and chief IP counsel of the company, and Ryan
`Lindsey, who's senior corporate counsel of intellectual property and
`litigation.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Good afternoon, Counsel, and welcome. Now for
`Patent Owner, who do we have appearing today?
`MR. WU: Wallace Wu, from Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer. With me
`is my colleague Nick Nyemah. Also with me are my colleagues Chantelle
`Gutrick, Ed Hong and Mark Cohen. Thank you, Your Honors.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Thank you. We set forth the procedures for
`today's hearing in our trial order and as a reminder, each party will have 40
`minutes of total time to present arguments in the case. Petitioner has the
`burden of proof and will go first. Patent Owner will then present opposition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`arguments for the case, also argue its motion to exclude and if the Petitioner
`has reserved time, Petitioner will present arguments in reply to the case and
`any opposition to the motion to exclude.
`Finally, if Patent Owner has reserved time, it may present reply
`arguments, only with regard to the motion to exclude. Counsel, any
`questions in that regard for Petitioner?
`MR. SUMMERS: No, Your Honor.
`MR. WU: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TARTAL: For clarity of the transcript, when you refer to an
`exhibit on the screen, please state for the record the exhibit and page
`number, or for demonstratives, the slide number to which you are referring.
`We remind each party that under no circumstances are they to interrupt the
`other party while that party is presenting its arguments and demonstratives.
`We are aware that Patent Owner has filed objections to Petitioner's
`demonstratives. Patent Owner may address those objections during its time
`to argue today, if it so chooses, but we will reserve ruling on those
`objections at this time.
`Are there any additional questions on behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. WU: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Any questions on behalf of Petitioner at this time?
`MR. SUMMERS: No.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Petitioner, would you like to reserve a certain
`amount of time of the 40 minutes for your later reply?
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes, Your Honor. We would like to reserve 12
`minutes for the reply rebuttal.
`JUDGE TARTAL: So that will begin you with 28 minutes. You may
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`proceed when you're ready, Counsel.
`MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. And, again, good afternoon. As
`shown in Slide, the '560 Patent is directed to an apparatus having movable
`blades or dies arranged to form an aperture in the shape of a polygon. The
`dies move inward to reduce the size of the aperture and they move outward
`to increase the size of the aperture.
`There are multiple uses for this apparatus, including as a crimper and
`as a blow molding tool. The variable size polygonal apertures shown in the
`'560 Patent were well-known in the prior art. As shown in Slide 4, we have
`examples from four prior art patents which show crimping apertures in the
`shape of a polygon, some go back as far as 1954, such as the Andrews
`Patent, in the upper left. So these patents show multiple uses for gripping
`objects, forming bars and so forth and this was very well-known in the prior
`art.
`
`Slide 6, please. Trial has been instituted on all challenged claims
`based on Section 103, in view of the Yasumi Patent, Fig. 8. Trail also has
`been instituted on a subset of those same claims under Section 103, based on
`Yasumi in combination with Morales.
`Slide 7 shows the disputed issues in this case. The first one is whether
`the preamble, a stent crimper is limiting. I'd like to turn to that argument
`first.
`
`Slide 9 shows Claim 1 from the '560 Patent. This is a representative
`claim and shows the preamble in dispute. Every challenged claim has this
`preamble.
`Slide 12. There are multiple reasons why the preamble is not limiting.
`First, the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention. The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`preamble of each claim could be deleted and it would not affect the structure
`of the invention. The body of the claim is completely understandable
`without reference to the preamble and Boston has not identified any
`structure supplied by the preamble, a stent crimper, that is important for the
`claim to be structural complete.
`Boston argues that the description of the term stent in the specification
`connotes structure, but the structure of a stent is irrelevant to the structure of
`a stent crimper. They're two completely different structures. The structure
`of a stent does not inform or determine the structure of a stent crimper.
`There are many different times of stent crimpers and I think we'll see some
`of those today when Boston presents its reply at argument.
`Slide 13. Next, the stent crimper preamble does not provide any
`antecedent basis. The body of the instituted claims does not contain the term
`stent crimper, so the preamble provides no antecedent basis for that term.
`Boston argues that Claim 36, which is not part of this proceeding,
`controls. That claim does recite the term stent crimper in the body of the
`claim, but the law is clear that a preamble can be limiting in one claim and
`not in another. Boston argues that Claim 36 should control so that we will
`be giving consistent meaning to the term stent crimper from one claim to the
`next and, therefore, avoid any inconsistency, but the meaning or construction
`of the claim is very different than whether that term is limiting.
`And that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about
`having inconsistent constructions of stent crimper across the claims. We're
`just saying that it's not limiting and, if anything, Claim 36, which does recite
`the term stent crimper in the body of the claim, shows that Boston knows
`how to write a patent claim and make the preamble potentially limiting if it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`wants to and it has not done that with of any instituted claims.
`Slide 14. Finally, Boston did not distinguish the prior art based on the
`preamble. Slide 14 shows several patents that were cited at various times by
`the patent examiner to reject the claims. None of the tools shown in these
`patents are stent crimpers and Boston did not argue for that patentability of
`any of the instituted claims on the ground that the preamble is limiting and
`thus distinguished these tools. In fact, the examiner repeatedly said the
`preamble was not limiting and Boston did not at any time dispute the
`examiner's position.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Is there any legal basis to why that would matter
`in this proceeding, whether or not Patent Owner disputed the preamble
`during prosecution and whether or not it was limiting or not?
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes, Your Honor. Go to Slide 11. There's a
`statement in there from the Catalina Marketing case which says: Statements
`of intended use or asserted benefits in the preamble may, in rare instances,
`limit apparatus claims, but only if the applicant clearly and unmistakably
`relied on those uses or benefits to distinguish the prior art.
`So it's our position that the term stent crimper is a statement of
`intended use and it's rare that it would be limiting, and thus the Catalina case
`is instructive by saying if don't argue the preamble to distinguish the prior
`art, then a statement of intended use like this is not limiting.
`In Slide 15, I just wanted to briefly address the cases that Boston cited
`in its Patent Owner response. Boston took the position that their cases that
`support the preamble being limited and that the '560 Patent is restricted to a
`stent crimper, but all the cases that Boston cited are distinguishable. In each
`of those cases the patents dealt with solving a particular problem in a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`particular way with a picture invention. There was no broad disclosure of
`the structure that had multiple uses like the case here, so we think the cases
`that Boston cited are distinguishable.
`And the '560 Patent does not define the term stent crimper and it does
`not set forth in any detail in the specification the structural dimensions of the
`crimper, what kind of material it needs to be made out of, those details are
`not there, which is very distinguishable from the cases such as Corning
`Glass where there was complex equations disclosed for determining the
`structural dimensions of the optical wave guide in that case and its refractive
`index.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Counsel, what statements in the patent itself
`support your argument for why the preamble is not limiting?
`MR. SUMMERS: I'm going to show you that right now. That's our
`next Slide 16. We have some excerpts here from the '560 Patent that we
`believe support our position that the '560 Patent is not limited to a stent
`crimper, but rather recites what Boston calls an inventive apparatus that has
`multiple and diverse uses.
`The first excerpt shows using this inventive apparatus to reduce the
`size of a medical device. The second excerpt talks about using the so called
`invented apparatus to crimp a medical device. The next one talks about
`using this apparatus as a variable size balloon mold.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Counsel, just for the record, can you say the
`column number and line number of the excerpts you're relying on.
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes, certainly. For the first excerpt it's '560 Patent,
`column 2, lines 48 through 55. The next excerpt about crimping a medical
`device is at column 3, lines 16 through 18.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`The next excerpt about using the apparatus as a variable sized balloon
`mold is at column 3, lines 36 through 38. And, finally, using the apparatus
`and incorporating it into a blow molding tool is found at column 8, lines 65
`through 67. And all these citations are from the '560 Patent, and they're also
`on the slide for your convenience as well, Your Honor.
`Slide 17. What does Boston say about all these other uses. In
`Boston's Patent Owner response they relegated these other uses to a
`footnote. In the footnote they say that the specifications acknowledgment of
`other uses of a stent crimper does not alter the fact that the '560 Patent was
`directed to stent crimping, but the '560 Patent does not acknowledge other
`uses of a stent crimper. As we just saw, it acknowledges other uses of a so
`called inventive apparatus for things other than stent crimping. Boston
`completely ignores these other uses and perhaps they'll explain them today,
`but up to this point, they've been ignored. I next want to talk about the
`operatively engaged limitation of the claims.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Can I ask, does your ground turn on whether or
`not the preamble is limiting. In other words, do you have any argument that
`the claims challenged are obvious regardless of whether or not the preamble
`is limiting?
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Can you explain?
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Whether or not preamble is limiting, so if the
`preamble is not limiting, Yasumi discloses each and every limitation of the
`claim. And this would be a single reference obviousness position.
`At the time we filed the petition, we weren't sure if the Board was
`going to agree with that, so we made our basis under 103(a). If the preamble
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`is limiting, we think Yasumi, with the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, that you could use pliers to crimp stents would look to
`Yasumi as an obvious solution to crimping a stent uniformly with that
`polygonally shaped aperture of Yasumi.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Where do you make that argument in your
`petition?
`MR. SUMMERS: We make that argument at pages 11 through 14,
`pages 46 through 47, I believe, and pages 82 through 85.
`So in the first citation I gave you, we talk about in the background of
`the art, how pliers are used to crimp stents. The second citation deals with
`how Yasumi is analogous and pertinent to the problem being solved. And
`the last citations to pages 81 to 85 deal with additional reasons why a person
`of skill would be motivated to use Yasumi. And I have slides on that, too, as
`well.
`
`Getting back to your question. If the preamble is limiting and for
`some reason the Board feels that Yasumi is not the kind of plier-like device
`that a person of skill would use to crimp a stent, we also have the Morales
`patent, which would be available to show some of the other limitations
`where the stent crimper -- where the term stent is used in some of the claims.
`That's the subset ground two.
`Let's go to Slide 19. Claim 1 of the '560 Patent shows the disputed
`limitations operatively engaged to the dies at distinct connection locations.
`I'd like point out that the claim only requires operative engagement by one
`stationary end wall and not two. It just says at least one of the stationary end
`walls.
`Slide 20, please. In this next series of slides, we're going to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`demonstrate how in the Fig. 8 embodiment Yasumi side plates are
`operatively engaged to the movable pieces.
`Boston contends that there's insufficient disclosure in Yasumi
`regarding how these parts are connected together, the moveable pieces and
`the end walls, but we think Boston is not applying the level of ordinary skill
`in the art that would be brought to a reading and understanding of Yasumi.
`So in Slide 20 we show the movement pieces in green and the fixed
`handle in blue, which has two stationary side plates 27-1 and 27-2. In Slide
`21 we introduce the movable handle, which is shown in purple. That has a
`frame at its base with guide grooves 39 shown in red and within those guide
`grooves the movable pieces are fitted. The movable pieces have projections
`40 which are also outlined in red that fit within those guide grooves.
`Slide 22 we're now introducing the setting piece 32 also shown in
`blue. The setting piece has two circular projections, one on the forward
`facing side and another one on the rear side that is not shown. The circular
`projection 33-1 fits within the hole 28-1 of the side plate. The rear circular
`projection on the setting piece fits within the circle recess 38 of the frame,
`which is in purple. So these three pieces, the movable pieces, the movable
`handle and the setting piece are now engaged with each other.
`And Slide 23, we're now going to introduce the two support discs 41
`and 42. Let's talk about disc 42 first. Boston's expert, Dr. Solar, contends
`that this disc is not engaged with a side plate. Again, we think he's not
`applying the level of skill in reaching that conclusion. The support disc 42
`fits within the hole 28-2 of the side plate and it also fits within a circular
`recess of the fame in purple. You can't see that circular recess but we've
`outlined it with the dashed line.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`There's also an annular flange 70 on the support disc that prevents it
`from going all the way through the hole. The support disc 41 at the bottom,
`is a little larger than the hole 28-1 on that other side plate and it fits up
`against it.
`If we look at Slide 24, we introduce the drive pins and the screws.
`The drive pins go through -- there's one for each hole in each of these
`components that go through the holes in the disc 42, the elongated holes and
`the movable pieces, through holes in the setting piece and through holes in
`the disc 41, then the screws are connected to those drive pins and everything
`is now coupled together. Everything is engaged. We'll have some cites
`from Yasumi, too, to support that. In this way, every component is
`connected to another component.
`Now we're going to see how all of this operates to reduce the size of
`the aperture in Slide 25. In Slide 25 we have created an exploded view of
`Fig. 8. The red dashed line show the common crimping axis of this tool.
`We've also introduced a new component in red called the adjust cam.
`To use the tool, an operator will grab the movable handle and move
`towards the stationary fixed handle. The setting piece also moves along with
`it until the setting piece hits the adjust cam in red. When that happens,
`Yasumi teaches that you can continue to bring the movable handle closer to
`the fixed handle and because the pins are stopped, they don't move anymore,
`they don't rotate around that axis anymore because they've been stopped by
`the setting piece, which they go through, now for the movement of the
`movable handle forces the movable pieces against those drive pins and they
`slide inwardly to close the aperture. And we've got all the components in
`blue that are stationary, so you can see those do not move when the adjust
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`cam is contacted by the setting piece, but the purple movable handle does
`continue to move.
`The next series of slides, 26, 27 and 28, we have citations to Yasumi,
`excerpts that show how the movable pieces move by relative rotation of
`those handles 37 and 26, how they're coupled together.
`Slide 27 specifically talks about the setting piece and how it stops
`moving when it engages the fixed handle and then bringing the handles
`closer together causes the movable pieces to close the aperture.
`And Slide 28 we also have an excerpt that talks about the setting piece
`hitting that adjust cam and stopping movement of the setting piece and thus
`fixing those pins, just like in Fig. 3. In fig. 3 the pins are fixed because
`they're connected to the guide base. Yasumi Fig. 8 just fixes the pins in a
`different way, when the setting piece hits the adjust cam.
`Slide 29. Boston alleges that Yasumi's disclosure is insufficient. We
`don't think the problem is with the disclosure of Yasumi as being
`insufficient. We think the problem is that Boston is not applying the level of
`ordinary skill in the art and also because Dr. Solar had some difficulty
`understanding. Dr. Solar is Boston's expert. So as you can imagine, this
`was subject to cross-examination at his deposition.
`In Slide 30 in one exchange we asked Dr. Solar about how the setting
`piece and the movable handle worked together and he candidly admitted he
`had a difficult time understanding how the setting piece actually worked. He
`said it again, he had a difficult time.
`Slide 31. In another exchange, we asked him again about the setting
`piece in the movable handle and he said it's not clear how it works. There's
`not enough description to really understand what's going on there.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`And, finally, in Slide 32, we asked him specifically, is the support disc
`42 engaged with the hole 28-2 in the side plate of the fixed handle. And his
`answer was there's no description that it's engaged. It just states that it's
`placed there. In our view that's a difference without a distinction. I think it's
`semantics in a sense. They are operatively engaged to each other as we saw
`the disc fits within the hole of the side plate.
`Slide 34. At one point Dr. Solar relied on fixation as a basis for there
`to be operative engagement. And here's an exchange where we asked, are
`you saying there need to be holes in the side plates of the Yasumi that
`correspond to the holes in the support disc. And Dr. Solar said for it to be
`operatively engaged, that's what I'm saying, yes. But as we just explained,
`Yasumi's side plate is operatively engaged to the movable pieces via
`multiple components. It's an indirect connection. And the '560 Patent does
`the same thing.
`In Slide 35 we show how the '560 patent operatively engages its
`blades to the non-rotating plate indirectly through three components. Slide
`36 shows the first component. It's the connecting link, 130 shown in red.
`Slide 37 shows the second component. It's a bearing block in dark blue,
`number 212. And the third component is shown at Slide 38. It's the linear
`slide shown in yellow.
`So Boston's argument that Yasumi's side plates are not operatively
`engaged is without merit and unpersuasive. Yasumi's side plates are
`operatively engaged to the dies by multiple components, just like the '560
`Patent.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Counsel, I believe you only relied on this
`figure in your reply, but could you make a statement or argument for the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`other embodiments.
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes, I believe that's correct. All of the blades are
`connected to the stationary plates through multiple components. We made
`this argument in our reply brief in response to Boston's position that there
`had to be some kind of fixation or holes in the side plate.
`One other point, if you removed any of the components of Yasumi,
`take away any one of the ones we just described, the tool wouldn't operate.
`So if that connection isn't operative engagement, it's hard to imagine what
`would be.
`In Slide 29 Boston argues that the distinct connection locations must
`be on the stationary end plates, but there's no support for this argument and
`Boston's own expert testified that the distinct connection locations are on the
`blades. Slide 40 shows that testimony. We asked him that question. That's
`what he said. Yes, they're located on the blades.
`Now I'd like to talk about the inward/outward limitation of the claim.
`Slide 42 shows a representative claim, which requires the dies move inward
`to reduce the size of the aperture or outward to increase the size of the
`aperture.
`Let's turn to Slide 43 now. We've got Yasumi Fig. 3 on the left and 2a
`from the '560 Patent on the right. We've colored the dies so you can see
`them more clearly. We're going to show how these dies move inward to
`reduce the size of the aperture. And I would ask you to focus on the tip of
`one of these dies. Let's just take the red die, for example. Watch the tip of
`the red die of Yasumi as it moves towards the central aperture of Yasumi.
`Let's do the same thing with the '560 Patent. Let's look at the red die and
`watch the tip of the red die follow that radial line 126 that goes through the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`center of the aperture.
`So the dies in Yasumi move inward in the exact same fashion as the
`'560 Patent and we have one more slide that shows that movement inward
`completely to zero. This is Slide 44. So there's clearly movement inward
`and outward according to the plain meaning of those terms as would be
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Let's go to Slide 47. Now if the Board does find that the preamble is
`limiting, it's our position that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to use Yasumi as a stent crimper. In Slide 47, what did a person
`of ordinary skill know. They know from these patents here, the Pinchasik,
`Dinh and Verbeek, that it was well-known to use pliers or ordinary pliers,
`plier-like devices, to crimp a stent.
`In Slide 48 we asked Dr. Solar, Boston's expert, if he knew, did
`people know to use pliers to crimp stents. He said, yes, they did. And then
`we asked him why didn't you say anything about that in your declaration.
`His answer was, I chose to express my opinions as I did. He really didn't
`have an answer. And we think the answer is because tools like Yasumi are
`very similar to what the examiner cited and what people of skill knew to use
`to crimp stents.
`We also know on Slide 49 that the examiner relied on prior like
`devices, just like Yasumi, to reject the claims during prosecution. The
`examiner recognized and relied on the Whitesell Patent and the Wilhelm
`Patent to reject the claims, taking the position that they were capable of
`crimping a stent, therefore, they were stent crimpers, even though none of
`the disclosure in the patents says that those were stent crimpers. And Boston
`did not dispute that position.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`
`We also know from Slide 50 that Yasumi has broad disclosure. Here's
`an expert from Yasumi that talks about the polygonally shaped aperture and
`how it can be used as a press tool, which is another name for a crimper, and
`there's other uses described. So this tool has a lot of application. You can
`even use it as a control valve.
`JUDGE POWELL: So do you submit that it is a stent crimper then?
`MR. SUMMERS: Yes, we do. It is a stent crimper, just like the prior
`Whitesell and Wilhelm Patents that the examiner cited.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Did you say that in a paper submitted to us?
`MR. SUMMERS: It would be in our petition and in Mr. Sheehan's
`declaration at page 50 of the petition, Your Honor.
`And so in Slide 51, in light of all these teachings, we think a person of
`skill would have been motivated to use Yasumi as a stent crimper. It's a
`plier-like tool. It solves the same problem as the '560 Patent. And there's
`nothing unpredictable about this device. A person of skill would have a
`reasonable expectation of success in using a device like this to crimp a stent.
`To the extent necessary, I'd like to turn, briefly, to the Morales Patent.
`At page 55, we have some representative claims, Claims 11 and 17. These
`cite the categories of additional limitations that are at issue here. Claim 11
`and 19 and 35 talk about the stent being disposed about a medical balloon
`and a medical balloon being disposed about a catheter. In our view, these
`are conventional uses of a stent and really don't limit what the invention is, a
`crimping device or a blow molding tool device. Whether there's a stent in
`there doesn't limit that claim, in a sense it's an improper dependent claim.
`However, it's there. And the other category of claim here is of Claims 17,
`26, 34 and 39, and those just talk about having the stent being disposed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`entirely within the aperture.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Counsel, I want to go back to the follow-on
`question I asked you and you pointed to page 50 of your petition, which says
`Yasumi is considered a stent crimper for purposes of analyzing validity of
`the challenged claims. What did you mean by for purposes of analyzing the
`validity? Is it not a stent crimper for other purposes?
`MR. SUMMERS: No, that's probably extraneous language we don't
`need. It's a tool that's capable of crimping a stent and doing a lot of other
`things, but it's clearly capable of crimping a stent and, therefore, it's a stent
`crimper. I think we were trying to follow what the Patent Office was saying
`here about a tool like this.
`And I'd also like to direct your attention, please, to pages 82 through
`85 of the petition, which also talk about why a person would be motivated to
`use Yasumi as a stent crimper. If you'd like, I can try to highlight a few of
`those sentences for you, if that would be helpful, but that's where you'll find
`it, Your Honor.
`I'm going to conclude with just saying that Boston really hasn't
`disputed any of these additional limitations and our remaining slides 56, 57
`and 58 show how Morales teaches each of these -- the limitations of these
`dependent claims, which are the subject of ground two. And with that I
`would like to save the rest of my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Thank you, Counsel. You have 40 minutes. Do
`you want to reserve any of that?
`MR. WU: Yes, I'd like to reserve five minutes for my time for
`argument on the motion to exclude.
`JUDGE TARTAL: You have 35 minutes for this portion of your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560 B2
`
`argument.
`MR. WU: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name's Wallace Wu. I
`represent the Patent Owner, Boston Scientific Scimed. Petitioner has failed
`to carry its burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence the
`challenged claims of that '560 Patent. They failed for many reasons. But
`before I get into the detail as to why they failed, I would like to step back
`and briefly examine the history of the stent crimper field.
`Slide 2 you see a picture of a stent on a journal publication from the
`late 1980s. It shows a tubular mesh-like metal structure that's mounted on a
`balloon catheter. Now when the balloon expandable stent was first
`introduced on the market, the stent and the balloon catheter were sold
`separately. So it was up the physicians to crimp the stent, either using a pair
`of hands or using a tool like a plier. But that didn't work because when you
`use hand crimping or plier-like device, it will result in non-uniform stent
`crimping. It could cause trauma to the vessel and also negatively affect the
`balloon itself and also the uniform expansion of the stent.
`Now in the early 1990s, medical device companies start to sell stents
`pre-mounted on the balloon catheters, so that trigged intense competition
`among medical device companies to develop stent crimping technologies.
`My client, Boston Scientific Scimed, and its predecessor Scimed, Inc.,
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
