`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Obalon Therapeutics, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Tilak M. Shah
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`Docket No. 65925-0000007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’306 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................................................... 6
`
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’306 Patent ................................................. 6
`
`
`
`B. Appeal in Prosecution of the ’491 Patent .............................................. 7
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`V.
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 9
`
`A. Grounds based on Gau in view of Shah ’915 and Throne .................. 10
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Gau in view of Shah ’915 and Throne renders
`claims 1-3, 5, and 10-14 obvious. ............................................. 10
`a.
`Gau teaches a “flattened spherical” intragastric
`balloon with an inflation element. .................................. 10
`Shah ’915 teaches manufacturing balloons using
`polyurethane film, manufacturing those balloons in
`two half-sections, and welding the two half-
`sections together. ............................................................ 14
`Throne teaches manufacturing multi-layer shapes
`using vacuum thermoforming. ........................................ 19
`One of skill in the art would combine the teachings
`of Gau, Shah ’915, and Throne to arrive at a
`method that includes all the limitations of claims
`1-3, 5, and 10-14. ............................................................ 23
`(i) One of skill in the art would have
`manufactured Gau’s balloon using
`Shah ’915’s polyurethane method because,
`as Shah ’915 teaches, the art recognized
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`Docket No. 65925-0000007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`polyurethane as having many desirable
`properties for medical barrier products. ............... 23
`(ii) One of skill in the art would have used
`Throne’s two-layer approach to manufacture
`Gau’s gastric balloon because, as Throne
`teaches, the approach is a cost-effective
`alternative for providing a gas and moisture
`barrier and reduces waste material. ...................... 24
`(iii) Combining Gau, Shah ’915, and Throne
`leads to predictable results. .................................. 25
`(iv) Manufacturing Gau’s balloon using
`Shah ’915’s and Throne’s teachings renders
`Gau suitable for its intended purpose. .................. 27
`
`2
`
`
`Ground 2: Gau in view of Shah ’915, Throne, and Lai
`renders claim 6 obvious. ........................................................... 36
`
`
`
`B. Grounds based on Connors ................................................................. 38
`
`1.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Ground 3: Connors in view of Rakonjac renders claims
`1-8 and 10-16 obvious. ............................................................. 38
`a.
`Connors teaches a spherical, multi-layer balloon
`manufactured from two half-sections. ............................ 38
`Rakonjac teaches balloons manufactured by
`vacuum thermoforming. ................................................. 42
`One of skill in the art would use the vacuum
`thermoforming manufacturing method of Rakonjac
`to manufacture the balloon half-sections of
`Connors to reduce fabrication time and increasing
`economy. ......................................................................... 43
`
`2.
`
`
`This Petition presents Connors in a new combination and
`provides new arguments supported by new evidence. .............. 59
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`Docket No. 65925-0000007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner combines Connors with Rakonjac to
`teach a vacuum thermoforming method. ........................ 60
`The Examiner did not present all of Connors’s
`teachings of a multi-layer, spherical balloon
`formed from two half-sections. ...................................... 61
`c. Mr. Strohl’s declaration explains the errors in
`Patent Owner’s declaration. ............................................ 62
`
`
`VI. NOTICES AND STATEMENTS .................................................................. 67
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`Docket No. 65925-0000007
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007), ...................................................................... 8
`
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................. 8, 9
`
`
`Nat. Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................... 18
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) ........................................................................................ 10, 19, 36, 42
`§ 102(b) ........................................................................................ 10, 14, 19, 42
`§ 102(e) .............................................................................................. 10, 38, 42
`§ 103 .............................................................................................................. 10
`§ 311-319 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`Docket No. 65925-0000007
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.132 ......................................................................................................... 7, 8
`§ 42.8(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 61
`§ 42.8(b)(2) .................................................................................................... 61
`§ 42.8(b)(3) .................................................................................................... 61
`§ 42.8(b)(4) .................................................................................................... 61
`§ 42.15 ........................................................................................................... 68
`§ 42.100 ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.104(a) ..................................................................................................... 67
`§ 42.104(b) ................................................................................................. 9, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306 B2 to Shah
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,883,491 B2 to Shah
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,883,491 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,712,832 B2 to Shah
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,976,950 B2 to Connors et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,316,605 to Rakonjac et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,833,915 to Shah
`
`“Technology of Thermoforming” by Dr. James L. Throne
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,084,061 to Gau et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,739,758 to Lai et al.
`
`Declaration of Clair Strohl
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`Petitioner Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully petitions for
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-8 and 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306 B2 (“the
`
`’306 patent” (Ex. 1001)) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’306 patent’s independent claims (claim 1 and claim 17) each cover a
`
`two-step method for introducing a balloon into a physiological locus of a patient:
`
`(1) introduce the balloon into the physiological locus and (2) inflate the balloon.
`
`No other steps for “introducing a balloon” limit the method.
`
`Characteristics of the introduced balloon and the method of manufacturing
`
`the balloon also limit the balloon. The balloon includes at least two layers: a first
`
`layer to impart “gas barrier character” to the balloon and a second layer of
`
`thermoplastic that “alone lacks such gas barrier character.” The balloon includes
`
`an inflation element; once inflated, the balloon is “non-pillowed” and generally
`
`spherical or flattened spherical. The balloon manufacture entailed vacuum
`
`thermoforming two half-sections and bonding those half-sections together along a
`
`peripheral seam.
`
`Each of these limitations was well known. U.S. Patent No. 5,084,061 to Gau
`
`et al. (“Gau” (Ex. 1010)) teaches introducing a balloon into a physiological locus
`
`(a gastric cavity) of a patient and inflating the balloon. In fact, Gau teaches that
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`“[a]ll gastric balloons . . . function on th[is] principle.” (Col. 1:21-29.) Gau’s
`
`balloon is “non-pillowed,” “flattened spherical,” and includes an inflation element.
`
`For manufacturing balloons in two half-sections, Patent Owner’s own U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,833,915 (“Shah ’915” (Ex. 1008)) discloses bonding two half-sections
`
`together along peripheral seams. For multi-layer balloons, “Technology of
`
`Thermoforming” by Throne (“Throne” (Ex. 1009)) teaches a multi-layer sheet
`
`where one layer provides a sealing function and the other layer does not. Throne
`
`further discloses manufacturing the two-layer sheets using vacuum thermoforming.
`
`One of skill in the art would have manufactured Gau’s balloon using
`
`Shah ’915’s polyurethane method because, as Shah ’915 teaches, those skilled in
`
`the art recognized that polyurethane offers many desirable properties for medical
`
`barrier products. Further, one of skill in the art would have used Throne’s two-
`
`layer approach to make barrier products because, as Throne teaches, the approach
`
`is cost-effective and reduces waste material.
`
`Petitioner also presents U.S. Patent No 6,976,950 B2 to Connors et al.
`
`(“Connors” (Ex. 1006)) that teaches a therapeutic method involving introducing
`
`and inflating a balloon. Connors teaches balloons manufactured from
`
`combinations of gas barrier layers, moisture barrier layers, and structural layers.
`
`Connors teaches balloons manufactured from two half-sections and bonded along
`
`peripheral portions to make seams. Connors does not explicitly teach the vacuum
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`thermoforming process for fabricating the introduced balloon, but U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,316,605 to Rakonjac et al. (“Rakonjac”) teaches that vacuum thermoforming two
`
`half-sections and bonding them together is “old in the art.”
`
`The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) cited Connors during prosecution
`
`of the current patent and its parent, U.S. Patent No. 7,883,491 (the “’491 patent”
`
`(Ex. 1003)). To overcome Connors, Patent Owner submitted a declaration from
`
`himself. In a related application, the Board1 reversed the Examiner because the
`
`Examiner did not address the same declaration nor explain how Connors’ taught all
`
`the limitations of the claims. In addition to presenting Connors with a new
`
`reference (Rakonjac) to show vacuum thermoforming, Petitioner presents the
`
`testimony of Clair Strohl and supporting evidence to address the relevant portions
`
`of Patent Owner’s declaration. (Declaration of Clair Strohl (Ex. 1012).)
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’306 PATENT
`
`The ’306 patent is titled “therapeutic intervention systems employing
`
`implantable balloon devices” and includes two independent claims. The
`
`’306 patent’s Background describes a need for gas-barrier films in polymeric films
`
`less than 25 mils. (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:21-24.) The Background describes many uses
`
`
`1 For simplicity, Petitioner refers to the Patent Trials and Appeals Board and its
`
`predecessor, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, as the “Board.”
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`for such gas barrier films, such as containing a specific gas when used to form gas
`
`receptacles or when used to isolate an article, structure, material, or region from an
`
`adverse gas environment. (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:25-34.) The Background explains that
`
`the film may fail in such applications. (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:35-39).
`
`The Summary of Invention provides a number of “aspects of the invention.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, Col. 1:53-3:8.) Each aspect includes a multilayer film having a sealing
`
`layer and a thermoplastic layer, where “the sealing film has a composition and
`
`thickness imparting gas barrier character to the multilayer film and wherein the at
`
`least one layer of thermoplastic polymer film alone lacks such gas barrier
`
`character.” (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:57-67, 2:11-19, 2:30-39, 2:41-52, 2:61-3:4.)
`
`Figure 1 depicts a multilayer extruded laminate film 10 including inner
`
`sealing layer film 12 and outer film layers 14 and 16. (Ex. 1001, Col. 7:1-6.)
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`Figure 3 depicts a vacuum thermoforming assembly 50 with a generally
`
`hemispherical cavity 54. (Ex. 1001, Col. 8:18-23.) A vacuum source (not shown)
`
`extracts gas through withdrawal passages on the surface 60 of the cavity through a
`
`gas extraction plenum 56 and discharge passage 58. (Id. at Col. 8:23-30.) The
`
`process includes heating multilayer film 62 to sufficient temperature for vacuum
`
`thermoforming and applying a vacuum to assembly 50 so that the film conforms to
`
`cavity surface 60. (Id. at Col. 8:45-53.)
`
`
`
`After forming the first and second half-sections, the process superimposes
`
`the two sections and bonds them together at the sections’ margins. (Ex. 1001, Col.
`
`8:62-67.) Figure 4 provides an exemplary frequency welding method where two
`
`sheets 62 and 64 lie in a cavity 82 and a radio frequency die 70 contacts the two
`
`sheets to bond the sheets circumferentially. (Ex. 1001, 9:1-11.)
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’306 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’306 patent matured from U.S. Application No. 11/554,550 (the
`
`“’550 Application” (Ex. 1002)) filed on October 30, 2006 with a priority claim to
`
`U.S. Application No. 10/815,282. (Ex. 1001, Cover Page.)
`
`On May 12, 2009, the PTO rejected all claims over Connors. (Ex. 1002,
`
`Non-Final Rejection, mailed 05/12/09, Pages 2-5.) Patent Owner responded on
`
`August 12, 2009 and relied upon his own declaration. (Ex. 1002, Response to
`
`Non-Final Rejection, filed August 12, 2009.) An Examiner Interview, Notice of
`
`Allowance, and Examiner’s Amendment followed in December 2009. (Ex. 1002,
`
`Notice of Allowance, mailed December 14, 2009.) The ’306 patent issued on
`
`March 23, 2010. (Ex. 1001, Cover Page.)
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`A detailed description of the prosecution history is included with the
`
`Declaration of Mr. Strohl. (Ex. 1012.)
`
`B. Appeal in Prosecution of the ’491 Patent
`
`Patent Owner filed the same declaration during prosecution of the
`
`’491 patent. The Examiner rejected all pending claims over Connors, Patent
`
`Owner appealed the rejection, and the Board reversed.
`
`In reversing, the Board faulted the Examiner for inadequate analysis. The
`
`Board found that the “Examiner has not specifically articulated in the Answer how
`
`Connors otherwise discloses or suggests, to one of ordinary skill in the art, how to
`
`construct a balloon with all of the characteristics required by each of the appealed
`
`claims.” (Ex. 1004, Appeal Decision, Mailed 08/18/2010, Page 5.)
`
`The Board also faulted the Examiner’s failure to consider Patent Owner’s
`
`declaration. Specifically, the Board held that “the Examiner’s failure to address
`
`and attempt to discredit the 37 CFR § 1.132 Declaration testimony of [Patent
`
`Owner] employed in support of Appellant’s arguments . . . of itself, warrants
`
`reversal of the stated rejection.” (Ex. 1004, Appeal Decision, Mailed 08/18/2010,
`
`Page 5.)
`
`The Board concluded:
`
`In sum and as correctly urged by Appellants, the Examiner does
`not reasonably explain how the referred to Patent Specification
`passages of Connors taken with the depicted embodiments
`represented in Figures 5 and 16C teach or suggest a balloon
`
`7
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`having all of the claimed characteristics to an ordinary skilled
`artisan given the additional non-rebutted information provided
`in the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration testimony of [Patent
`Owner].
`
`The aforementioned failure on the part of the Examiner
`represents a dispositive issue that we resolve in Appellant's
`favor.
`
`(Ex. 1004, Appeal Decision, Mailed 08/18/2010, Page 5.)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ’306 patent provides two explicit definitions:
`
`As used herein, the term “film” means a material in a sheet or web
`
`form, having a thickness of 50 mils (1.270 mm) or less.
`
`As used herein, the term “extrusion laminated” in reference to a film
`
`of thermoplastic material means that such film of thermoplastic
`
`material is deposited as an extruded melt film on (one or both sides
`
`of) the sealing layer film, so that the respective thermoplastic material
`
`and sealing layer films are consolidated with one another under
`
`elevated temperature conditions.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Col. 3:9-21.)
`
`Petitioner does not submit any other claim constructions. Petitioner relies on
`
`the plain language of the claims and embodiments in the ’306 patent to
`
`demonstrate that the prior art meets the limitations of the ’306 patent. Hakim v.
`
`Cannon Avent Group, PLC, 479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When there is no
`
`dispute as to the meaning of a term that could affect the disputed issues of the
`
`litigation, ‘construction’ may not be necessary.”); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`8
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those
`
`terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary
`
`to resolve the controversy).
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`cancel claims 1-8 and 10-16 of the ’306 patent.
`
`The ’306 patent combines known features of intragastric balloons with
`
`known thermoplastic manufacturing processes. Gau, for example, teaches all the
`
`gastric balloon limitations recited in independent claim 1. Throne and Shah ’915
`
`teach the thermoplastic manufacturing techniques recited in independent claim 1.
`
`One or more of Gau, Throne, and Shah ’915 teach the additional limitations for
`
`many dependent claims.
`
`Connors teaches all limitations of independent claim 1, except
`
`manufacturing a balloon by vacuum thermoforming; Rakonjac teaches
`
`manufacturing a balloon by vacuum thermoforming. The PTO cited Connors and
`
`the Board reversed the Examiner in the ’491 patent. As explained below, Connors
`
`and Rakonjac, in conjunction with the evidence presented, addresses the Board’s
`
`findings on appeal: Petitioner newly offers Rakonjac for vacuum thermoforming,
`
`and Petitioner provides an expert declaration and supporting evidence to address
`
`the declaration provided by Patent Owner during prosecution.
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`The table below sets forth the statutory grounds for the challenge (all
`
`statutory citations are pre-AIA).
`
`Ground
`
`35 U.S.C. Reference
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 1 § 103
`
`Gau, Shah ’915, Throne
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, and
`
`Ground 2 § 103
`
`Gau, Shah ’915, Throne, Lai
`
`Claim 6
`
`10-14
`
`Ground 3 § 103
`
`Connors, Rakonjac
`
`Claims 1-8 and 10-16
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`cancel of claims 1-8 and 10-16 of the ’306 patent.
`
`A. Grounds based on Gau in view of Shah ’915 and Throne
`
`1. Ground 1: Gau in view of Shah ’915 and Throne renders
`claims 1-3, 5, and 10-14 obvious.
`
`a. Gau teaches a “flattened spherical” intragastric
`balloon with an inflation element.
`
`Gau issued on January 28, 1992, claiming priority to an application filed on
`
`September 25, 1987. (Ex. 1010, Cover Page.) Gau qualifies as prior art to the
`
`’306 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Neither Patent Owner nor the PTO cited Gau during the prosecution of the
`
`’306 patent.
`
`Gau relates to implantable weight control devices. (Ex. 1010, Col. 1:13-14.)
`
`Gau notes that existing gastric devices are typically spherical, which can present a
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`challenge to surgeons manipulating the device in the gastric cavity. (Ex. 1010,
`
`Col. 2:8-14.) To address this challenge, Gau offers a flattened spherical balloon
`
`allowing for “relative ease with which the important components of the balloon 20
`
`can be visualized and manipulated while . . . in the stomach.” (Ex. 1010, Col.
`
`7:39-41; see also id. at Col. 4:28-43; Figure 1 (reproduced below).)
`
`
`
`Gau’s gastric balloon also includes a self-sealing valve (element 28, Figure 2
`
`reproduced below), a fill tube guide (element 54, Figure 2 reproduced below), and
`
`a removal tab (element 64, Figure 2 reproduced below).
`
`
`
`“The purpose of the valve 28 is to permit inflation of the balloon 20 after it
`
`has been inserted into the stomach 26, and also its deflation before it is desired to
`
`remove the balloon 20 from the stomach 26.” (Ex. 1010, Col. 4:57-60.) “The
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`purpose of the fill tube guide 54 is to serve as a seat for the stiffening rod or
`
`stylette (not shown) which is used to make the fill tube and balloon rigid during the
`
`original insertion of the balloon 20 into the stomach 26.” (Ex. 1010, Col. 6:51-55.)
`
`“The purpose of the tab 64 is to provide means through which the balloon 20 can
`
`be relatively easily captured or grasped after full or partial deflation and removed
`
`from the stomach 26.” (Ex. 1010, Col. 7:2-5.)
`
`The process includes mounting the balloon by passing a fill tube and stylette
`
`through the valve 28 and then seating the stylette in the fill tube guide. (Ex. 1010,
`
`Col. 6:57-60.) The balloon 20 “is placed into the stomach in a non-inflated form,
`
`and is filled after insertion with a suitable fluid, such as saline solution.” (Ex.
`
`1010, Col. 3:62-65.) The balloon can then be deflated by passing a filler tube
`
`through the valve 28. (Col. 5:19-23.)
`
`As described above, Gau teaches introducing a balloon into a physiological
`
`locus of a patient and inflating the balloon. Gau also provides a balloon is
`
`non-pillowed and “generally spherical or flattened spherical.” Although the
`
`’306 patent does not define those terms, during prosecution of the related ’491
`
`patent, Patent Owner referred to the following shape as “a non-pillowed, spheroid”
`
`and stated that the “balloon pictured in Exhibits B1-B3 corresponds to the claims
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`of the instant application.”2 (Ex. 1004, Appeal Brief, filed March 20, 2008,
`
`Declaration of T. Shah, Paragraph 11 & Exhibit B1-B3; see also Ex. 1002,
`
`Response to Office Action, filed August 12, 2009 (referencing the declaration in
`
`distinguishing Connors).)
`
`
`
`The balloon in Gau has a shape similar to the “non-pillowed, spheroid”
`
`shape in the image above, except slightly “flattened” in one plane (see Gau Figures
`
`1 and 2 below) to produce a “non-pillowed3, flattened spherical” balloon.
`
`(Ex. 1012, ¶ 45.)
`
`
`2 The claims of the ’491 patent include the limitation “a balloon that in an inflated
`
`state is non-pillowed and spheroidal in shape.” (Ex. 1004, Response to February
`
`22, 2007 Final Office Action, Filed April 23, 2007, Page 3.)
`
`3 The ’306 patent does not provide guidance on the term “non-pillowed.” The only
`
`mention of the term is in claims 1 and 17, and then a statement that vacuum
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Shah ’915 teaches manufacturing balloons
`using polyurethane film, manufacturing those
`balloons in two half-sections, and welding the
`two half-sections together.
`
`Shah ’915 issued on November 10, 1998, and qualifies as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Shah ’915 is titled “Method of Welding Polyurethane Thin
`
`Film.”
`
`Shah ’915 discloses the use of a polyurethane film
`
`Shah ’915 generally teaches “[a] method of welding at least two layers of a
`
`thin thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer . . . to form a weld seam . . . to produce
`
`
`thermoforming two half-sections together can result in a non-pillowed balloon.
`
`(Ex. 1001; Col. 4:19-23.) As explained in the sections below, Petitioner proposes
`
`combining Throne with Gau for a vacuum thermoformed balloon.
`
`During prosecution, Patent Owner declared that certain images (as explained
`
`herein) were “non-pillowed.” As shown herein, Gau’s shape is essentially the
`
`same as the shape of the balloons described by Patent Owner as non-pillowed.
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`polyurethane barrier products.” (Ex. 1008, Abstract.) Shah ’915 notes that the art
`
`recognized the benefits of using polyurethane before the filing date of the
`
`’306 patent: “It has been recognized that polyurethane polymers have properties
`
`desirable for many of the rubber goods heretofore made of natural rubber,
`
`particularly thermoplastic elastomer polyurethanes.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 2:43-46.)
`
`Shah ’915 further teaches exemplary benefits for polyurethane products
`
`manufactured according to its method: “The products of this new method have
`
`high integrity, and are free from wrinkles, pin holes, holidays, burns or charring,
`
`mandatory in devices of this class.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 5:13-16.)
`
`As noted above, the ’306 patent defines “film” to be “a material in a sheet or
`
`web form, having a thickness of 50 mils (1.270 mm) or less.” Shah ’915’s
`
`polyurethane layers are “0.5 to 5.0 mils” thick, and Shah ’915 refers to the layers
`
`as “thin polyurethane film.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 3:5-9.) Shah ’915 therefore teaches
`
`the use of a film, as required by all claims, and a polyurethane film, as required by
`
`dependent claim 10. (Ex. 1012, ¶ 54.)
`
`Shah ’915 teaches the manufacture of balloons in two half-sections
`
`Shah ’915 teaches balloon manufacture explicitly: “FIG. 7 is a view of [a]
`
`non-inflated thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer balloon cuff of an in-dwelling
`
`urinary bladder catheter. FIG. 8 is an inflated thermoplastic polyurethane
`
`elastomer balloon cuff of an in-dwelling urinary bladder catheter.” (Ex. 1008,
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`Col. 5:27-61.) Shah ’915 Figures 7 and 8 are reproduced below, with the balloon
`
`highlighted:
`
`
`
`Figures 7 and 8 illustrate a balloon manufactured from two halves, 46A and
`
`46B joined at weld seam 44. (Col. 11:54-57.) Shah ’915 illustrates the seam in a
`
`solid double-line 44 on the front portion (as viewed in Figures 7 and 8) and
`
`illustrates the seam as a dashed line on the rearward portion. (Ex. 1012, ¶ 55-56.)
`
`In figures for other embodiments (e.g., Figures 4-6 and 9-11), Shah ’915 uses the
`
`same solid double-lines to depict viewable seams and dashed lines to depict
`
`non-viewable seams. (Id.) The seams depict the joining line for the two half-
`
`sections of the balloons. (Id.)
`
`Shah ’915 discloses methods of bonding the two half-sections
`
`Shah ’915 also teaches bonding two half-sections together, as required by
`
`the claims of the ’306 patent. (Id., 51.) According to Shah ’915, known
`
`16
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`techniques join polyurethanes using bonding or welding, but those techniques have
`
`resulted in “wrinkles, pin holes, discontinuities, holidays and burn or charring
`
`defects.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 2:64-3:8.) Shah ’915’s solution to the prior art problems
`
`is a method for “highly efficient R.F. welding of thermoplastic polyurethane
`
`elastomers.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 5:21-22.) The R.F. welding method includes
`
`“heating the polymer to a temperature above the Vicat softening temperature (but
`
`below the heat distortion temperature or film distortion temperature), and
`
`subjecting the heated polymers to be joined to R.F. energy and pressure.”
`
`(Ex. 1008, Col. 5:22-26.) Shah ’915’s technique is “particularly useful for joining
`
`thin films of the polyurethane” (Ex. 1008, Col. 5:26-28) but “the technique is
`
`equally applicable to thicker films and other forms of such polymers.” (Ex. 1008,
`
`Col. 6:66-7:1.)
`
`Although Shah ’915 mainly discusses welding “layers,” Shah ’915 also
`
`discloses welding edges, as required by the claims of the ’306 patent. (Ex. 1012, ¶
`
`57.) The figures of Shah ’915 consistently depict the seam on the edge. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1008, Figures 4-11 and 13; Ex. 1012.) Further, Shah ’915 notes those in the art
`
`generally prefer “weld[ing] only at the seam areas and their immediate vicinity”
`
`since seam-welding “minimiz[es] the heat input.” (Ex. 1008, Col. 8:22-25.) Thus,
`
`Shah ’915 teaches welding on an edge because Shah ’915 depicts the seam on the
`
`
`sd-690025
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,682,306 B2
`
`Docket No.: 65925-0000007
`
`edge and notes that those of skilled in the art preferred seam welding. (Ex. 1012,
`
`¶¶ 57-58.)
`
`As described below in Section V.A.1.c, Patent Owner argued during
`
`prosecution that one of skill in the art could not produce non-pillowed balloons
`
`without vacuum thermoforming. In Shah ’832, Patent Owner argued something
`
`else: that RF welding technique results in a “non-pillowed” balloon.4 (Ex. 1005,
`
`Col. 2:20-25 (“Film welding methods . . . also experience difficulties. Inflation of
`
`such catheter balloons is usually non-uniform, due to ‘pillowing’ or so-called
`
`‘pillow effect.’).) Shah ’915 teaches R.F. welding (Ex. 1008, Col. 3:21-29), the
`
`same bonding technique5 taught in Shah ’832 (Ex. 1005, Col. 3:63-4:3).
`
`
`4 During prosecution, Patent Owner argued that Shah ’832 published after the
`
`’306 patent’s filing date. Patent Owner is mistaken; Shah ’832 was publically
`
`available for almost one year. Although this means that Shah ’832 is not available
`
`as prior art, it “has long been the law that the motivation to combine need not be
`
`found in prior art references, but equally can be found in the knowledge generally
`
`available to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Nat. Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac.
`
`Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
`
`5 Shah ’832 incorporates Shah ’915 by reference for the R.F. weldin