UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`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
`
`
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
