`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`BRACCO DIAGNOSTICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01449
`U.S. Patent No. 9,299,467
`______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Jubilant DraxImage Inc.
`v.
`Bracco Diagnostics Inc.
`
`Case IPR2018-01448 – Patent 9,299,468
`Case IPR2018-01449 – Patent 9,299,467
`Case IPR2018-01450 – Patent 9,299,468
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`1
`
`
`
`Prior Art Grounds
`
`• -01448 IPR: ’468 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 4-19, and 24-28
`– (I) Klein, Reilly, and Tate
`– (II) Klein, Reilly, Tate, and the Bracco Manual
`– (III) Klein, Reilly, Tate, and Hirschmann
`– (IV) Klein, Reilly, Tate, Hirschmann and Jackson
`• -01449 IPR: ’467 Patent: Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-22
`– (I) Klein (anticipation)
`– (II) Klein and Tate
`– (III) Klein and the Bracco Manual
`• -01450 IPR: ’468 Patent: Claims 21-23
`– (I) Klein (anticipation)
`– (II) Klein, Hirschmann, and Jackson
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`2
`
`
`
`Two Main Disputes Between the Parties
`
`1. Whether Klein discloses the “computer prevents”
`limitations of the patents?
`
`2. Whether it is obvious to move Klein’s off-board
`dose calibrator to Klein’s cart?
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`3
`
`
`
`Prior Art Grounds
`
`• -01448 IPR: ’468 Patent: 1, 2, 4-19, and 24-28
`– (I) Klein, Reilly and Tate
`– (II) Klein, Reilly, Tate, and the Bracco Manual
`– (III) Klein, Reilly, Tate, and Hirschmann
`– (IV) Klein, Reilly, Tate, Hirschmann and Jackson
`• -01449 IPR: ’467 Patent: Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-22
`– (I) Klein (anticipation)
`– (II) Klein and Tate
`– (III) Klein and the Bracco Manual
`• -01450 IPR: ’468 Patent: Claims 21-23
`– (I) Klein (anticipation)
`– (II) Klein, Hischmann and Jackson
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`4
`
`
`
`The “Computer Prevents” Limitations Are Not
`Disclosed by Klein
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`5
`
`
`
`Prior Art Grounds – “computer prevents” limitations
`
`•’468 Patent: Claims 2, 21, and 24
`– Klein, Reilly, and Tate (Ground 1 – IPR2018-1448)
`– Klein (Ground 1 – IPR2018-1450)
`•’467 Patent: Claims 1 and 13
`– Klein (Ground 1 – IPR2018-1449)
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`6
`
`
`
`“computer prevents” limitations – ’468 Patent
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 48-58.
`
`7
`
`
`
`“computer prevents” limitations – ’468 Patent
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 48-58.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1448 Petition - ’468 Patent
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Petition at 43.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1448 Petition - ’468 Patent
`
`Petition at 44.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner implicitly admits that Klein does NOT disclose the
`“computer prevents” limitations
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1015, Stone Decl. at ¶ 252.
`
`
`
`Klein does not disclose a computer that prevents a patient infusion if a
`strontium breakthrough test result exceeds an allowable limit
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 52.
`
`12
`
`
`
`’468 Claims 1-2
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`1. Computer calculates ratio
`based on breakthrough
`measurements
`2. Computer compares
`breakthrough test result
`to allowable limit to
`determine if limit is
`exceeded
`3. Computer prevents
`patient infusion if
`breakthrough test result
`exceeds allowable limit
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 4.
`13
`
`
`
`Klein addressed the problem of reducing “measurable activity rate
`fluctuations” to achieve increased precision in the eluted activity
`
`Klein at iii.
`
`Klein at 130.
`
`* * *
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 5, n.1.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Klein addressed the problem of reducing “measurable activity rate
`fluctuations” to achieve increased precision in the eluted activity
`
`* * *
`
`Klein at 1-2.
`
`Sur-reply at 5, n.1.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`15
`
`
`
`Klein addressed the problem of reducing “measurable activity rate
`fluctuations” to achieve increased precision in the eluted activity
`
`Klein at 72.
`
`Sur-reply at 5, n.1.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`16
`
`
`
`Klein Figure 2-1 – “Daily protocol flow chart”
`
`Klein at 19
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reply at 5.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Figure 3-15
`4 Modes of Klein – flush, calibration, patient elution, test elution
`
`Ex. 1014 at 59.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 56.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Klein’s calibration run –
`initialization, flush, prime, start elution
`
`Ex. 2012 (ITC Hr’g Tr.) at 982:4-7 (Pelc).
`
`Ex. 1014 at 59.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 56.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Klein’s calibration run –
`wait time, flush to dose calibrator
`
`Ex. 2012 (ITC Hr’g Tr.) at 982:8-12 (Pelc).
`
`Ex. 1014 at 59.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 56.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Klein’s calibration run –
`calibrate in-line detector
`
`Ex. 2012 (ITC Hr’g Tr.) at 982:13-17 (Pelc).
`
`Ex. 1014 at 59.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 56.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Klein’s calibration run –
`take “breakthrough measurement”
`
`Ex. 1014 at 59.
`
`Ex. 2012 (ITC Hr’g Tr.) at 982:18-983:6 (Pelc).
`POR at 57.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`22
`
`
`
`Klein – breakthrough calculations
`
`Ex. 1014 at 51.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 4, 8.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Bracco Manual – breakthrough calculations
`
`Ex. 1021 at 34-35.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 8.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Klein Figure 2-3
`
`Ex. 1014 at 24.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 14-15.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Klein Figure 3-12(a)-(d)
`
`Ex. 1014 at 54.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reply at 4-5.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Klein Figure 3-12(e)-(h)
`
`Ex. 1014 at 54.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reply at 4-5.
`27
`
`
`
`Klein does not disclose a computer that prevents a patient infusion if a
`strontium breakthrough test result exceeds an allowable limit
`
`Ex. 2012 (ITC Hr’g Tr.) at 983:7-9 (Pelc).
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 57.
`
`28
`
`
`
`The ALJ’s analysis should be accorded little weight here
`
`• ITC initial determination is not binding on the Board.
`• ID is irrelevant to these proceedings.
`• The ALJ improperly substituted his own opinion for that of
`a POSITA in the ID.
`• “The Commission has determined to review the FID in part.
`Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the
`FID’s findings with respect to invalidity and domestic
`industry. The Commission has determined not to review the
`remainder of the FID. At this time, the Commission does
`not request any briefing from the parties.” Ex. 2018 at 2.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 21-22.
`
`29
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01448
`
`A POSITA Would Not Move Klein’s
`Dose Calibrator
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`30
`
`
`
`All of Petitioner’s Grounds for IPR2018-01448 Rely on a
`Combination of Klein + (Tate or Reilly)
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Petition at 26.
`
`31
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on either Reilly or Tate as a secondary reference to
`Klein
`
`Ex. 2010, 42:24-43:7
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 1, 18, 21, 26, 47.
`32
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims all require a moveable platform/cart having
`a dose calibrator
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 18.
`
`33
`
`
`
`No dispute that Klein’s dose calibrator is not located on Klein’s
`moveable cart
`
`POR at 17.
`
`Petition at 14.
`
`Ex. 2006 (Stone)
`at 1-8.
`34
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues it is obvious to move Klein’s off-board dose
`calibrator to Klein’s moveable cart
`
`Petition at 26.
`
`Reply at 11.
`
`Reply at 21-22.
`35
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator is the Capintec CRC-15
`
`Klein at 23.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`36
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator makes extremely sensitive measurements
`related to patient safety
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Klein at 52.
`37
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator makes extremely sensitive
`measurements related to patient safety
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 27.
`
`38
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator cannot be subjected to mechanical vibration or
`shock
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 16.
`39
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator cannot be subjected to mechanical vibration or
`shock
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 28.
`
`40
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply arguments are unconvincing
`
`Reply at 15.
`
`Reply at 16-17.
`
`41
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`Exs. 1028-1030 and 2011 at 348
`
`Petition at vi.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Ex. 2011 at 348.
`42
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s uncontradicted expert testimony
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Ex. 2003 at 78.
`
`43
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator must also avoid exposure to outside sources of
`variable radiation
`
`POR at 16.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`44
`
`
`
`Klein’s dose calibrator must also avoid exposure to outside sources of
`variable radiation
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 30-31.
`
`45
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Argument
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reply at 17.
`
`46
`
`
`
`But both experts agree that background radiation is a concern with 82Rb
`systems, such as Klein’s
`
`Ex. 2007-Stone at 836:22-837:2.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Ex. 2003-Pelc at 79.
`47
`
`
`
`And Dr. Pelc’s analysis is factually supported, being based on express
`teachings of the Capintec manual and Klein
`
`Ex. 2003-Pelc at 79.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Ex. 2003-Pelc at 81.
`
`48
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s First Motivation to Combine Argument
`
`Petition at 27.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`49
`
`
`
`Klein is not in the same field of endeavor as Tate or Reilly
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 25.
`
`50
`
`
`
`And a “field of endeavor” analysis is just a starting point for an
`obviousness analysis
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`51
`
`Sur-reply at 14-15.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply re: FDG v. 82Rb
`
`Reply at 14.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`52
`
`
`
`Yet Petitioner asks the Board to ignore what the prior art actually
`discloses
`
`Sur-Reply at 10.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`53
`
`
`
`Undisputed that Klein’s system is for 82Rb infusions
`
`Petition at 13.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`54
`
`
`
`Tate and Reilly are for FDG infusions
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 20.
`
`55
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert admitted to half-life related differences
`between Tate’s FDG and Klein’s 82Rb
`
`Ex. 2010, 90:8-25
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 17.
`
`56
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert admitted to half-life related differences
`between Tate’s FDG and Klein’s 82Rb
`
`Ex. 2010, 88:6-19
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-reply at 17.
`
`57
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues Tate and Reilly “describe application to” 82Rb
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Petition at 27.
`
`58
`
`
`
`Tate and Reilly do not describe application to 82Rb
`
`Tate at [0007].
`
`Reilly at [0014].
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`59
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert admitted that Tate and Reilly do not describe
`application to 82Rb
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Ex. 2010 at 65:4-19.
`
`60
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert admitted that Tate and Reilly do not describe
`application to 82Rb
`
`Tate at [0276].
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`61
`
`Ex. 2010 at 93:23-94:9.
`
`
`
`The dose calibrators of Tate and Reilly are used for a different
`purpose
`
`POR at 38.
`
`POR at 39.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`62
`
`
`
`Petitioner initially argued Reilly discloses a moveable cart
`
`Petition at 27.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Petition at 29.
`63
`
`
`
`But Reilly discloses a “cabinet stand” -- not an integrated cart
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reilly at [0066].
`64
`
`
`
`Reilly’s “cabinet stand” (300)
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reilly at FIG. 3.
`
`65
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`Ex. 2010 at 50:3-21.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`66
`
`
`
`Petitioner now argues it does not matter what Reilly discloses
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`67
`
`Reply at 25.
`
`
`
`But the difference is critical…
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-Reply at 11.
`68
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Argument
`
`Petition at 17-18.
`
`Petition at 29.
`
`69
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`Reilly’s use of the Capintec CRC-15 dose calibrator on a stationary
`cabinet stand proves there is no motivation
`
`POR at 42-43.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-Reply at 11.
`
`70
`
`
`
`Reilly provides no motivation to combine
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 43.
`
`71
`
`
`
`Petitioner switches to the Tate dose calibrator
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Reply at 16.
`
`72
`
`
`
`But this is a new argument – Petitioner’s argument is to move
`Klein’s dose calibrator
`
`Petition at 29.
`
`Reply at 11.
`
`Reply at 21-22.
`73
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`And Petitioner’s new argument must be rejected
`
`“Because of the expedited nature of IPR proceedings, ‘[i]t
`is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR
`proceedings adhere to the requirement
`that
`the initial
`petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’’ Id. at
`1369 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Accordingly, an IPR
`petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’
`for why a claim would have been obvious.”
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, No. 2018-1596, 2019 WL 4308876 *4
`(Fed. Cir. Sep. 12, 2019), (emphasis added).
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-Reply at 11-12.
`
`74
`
`
`
`Petitioner ignores Klein’s disclosures re: why the Capintec CRC-15
`dose calibrator must be used
`
`Reply at 15-16.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`75
`
`
`
`But Klein clearly uses this “gold standard” dose calibrator to ensure
`proper measurements are conducted
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-Reply at 12.
`76
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Argument
`
`Petition at 17-18.
`
`Petition at 29.
`
`77
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Second Motivation to Combine Argument
`
`Petition at 27.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`78
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “prototype” argument is a red herring
`
`POR at 45.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`79
`
`
`
`It does not matter whether Klein’s system is a prototype
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 46.
`
`80
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “prototype” argument ignores what Klein actually
`discloses as potential improvements
`
`POR at 46.
`
`POR at 46-47.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`81
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s prototype argument must be rejected
`
`“There are three specific problems with the ‘subjective preference’ analysis
`espoused and applied by the Board. First, by completely disregarding certain
`teachings as ill-defined ‘subjective preferences,’ the Board's approach invited the
`‘distortion caused by hindsight bias’into the fold … Second, the Board focused on
`what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention. … Third, the
`Board’s analysis encourages the fact-finder to outright discard evidence relevant
`both to ‘teaching away’ and to whether skilled artisans would have been motivated
`to combine references.”
`
`Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068-1069
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 47.
`
`82
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Third Motivation to Combine Argument
`
`Petition at 28-29.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`83
`
`
`
`Yet neither Tate nor Reilly are “self-contained”
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 44.
`
`Reply at n. 3.
`84
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert agreed: no motivation to put an FDG
`cyclotron on a self-contained system
`
`Ex. 2010 at 136:17-137:7
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`POR at 44.
`
`85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s inappropriate use of the ’468 patent’s own disclosure
`
`Reply at 19.
`
`Bracco – IPR2018-01448, 1449, 1450 [Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence]
`
`Sur-Reply at 14.
`
`86
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument
` IPR2018-01449
`
`Dated: October 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Facsimile: (303) 572-6540
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`
`Barry J. Schindler (Reg. No. 32,938)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`Telephone: (973) 360-7900
`Facsimile: (973) 301-8410
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Bracco
`Diagnostics Inc.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument
`IPR2018-01449
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that October 25, 2019, a copy of this Patent Owner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument has been served in its entirety via
`
`electronic mail by emailing Petitioner’s lead and backup counsel at:
`
`Robert L. Hails
`rhails@bakerlaw.com
`T. Cy Walker
`cwalker@bakerlaw.com
`Theresa M. Weisenberger
`tweisenberger@bakerlaw.com
`Jubilant-Baker@bakerlaw.com
`
`as provided for by Petitioner’s listed Service Information in its Petition.
`
`Date: October 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs
`Registration No. 54,919
`1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`
`ii
`
`