`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`STERIS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`v.
`KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`Case No.: IPR2019-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,420
`___________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,069,420
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Litigation .................................................................................. 4
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`POWER OF ATTORNEY ............................................................................... 5
`III.
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 5
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 6
`A.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 6
`B.
`How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under the Statutory
`Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge .................................. 8
`VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 8
`A. Declaration Evidence ............................................................................ 8
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 9
`C.
`Background of the Technology ............................................................. 9
`D. Overview of the ’420 Patent ................................................................16
`E.
`The Prosecution History of the ‘420 Patent ........................................22
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................23
`A.
`Between ...............................................................................................23
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The description of the preferred embodiments in the ’420 patent
`reflects a standard scope of the term “between.” ......................24
`The extrinsic evidence is consistent with the intrinsic evidence
`and supports a standard meaning of “between.” .......................27
`Petitioner’s proposed construction can be applied with an
`objective test. ............................................................................28
`In Communication With… ..................................................................29
`B.
`Software Executing… .........................................................................30
`C.
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................30
`A. GROUND 1: JP ’468 in view of Benevento, and optionally in view of
`Chang and/or Elia, render claims 3 and 81 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103. ...................................................................................................30
`1.
`Claim 1 Preamble: “A system for controlling the
`communication of medical imaging data, comprising” ............30
`Claim 1[a]: “a computer” .........................................................33
`Claim 1[b]: “a plurality of sources of medical imaging data in
`communication with said computer” ........................................34
`Claim 1[c]: “a plurality of destinations for the medical imaging
`data in communication with said computer” ............................35
`Claim 1[d]: “a touchscreen controlled by said computer for
`simultaneously displaying a plurality of source icons and a
`plurality of destination icons” ...................................................36
`Claim 1[e]: “wherein the plurality of source icons correspond
`to said plurality of sources in order to allow a user of said
`system to select a particular source of medical imaging data,
`and the plurality of destination icons correspond to said
`plurality of destinations in order to allow the user to select at
`least one particular destination to receive the medical imaging
`data supplied by the selected source” .......................................39
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2: “A system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said
`touchscreen further comprises a display window for displaying
`medical images generated from the medical imaging data
`supplied by the selected source” ...............................................42
`Claim 3: “A system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the display
`window is located between the plurality of source icons and the
`plurality of destination icons.” ..................................................50
`Claim 79 Preamble: “A system for controlling the
`communication of medical imaging data, comprising” ............59
`10. Claim 79[a]: “a computer” ........................................................59
`11. Claim 79[b]: “a plurality of sources of medical imaging data in
`communication with said computer” ........................................59
`12. Claim 79[c]: “a plurality of destinations for the medical
`imaging data in communication with said computer” ..............60
`13. Claim 79[d]: “a touchscreen controlled by said computer” .....60
`14. Claim 79[e]: “software executing on said computer for
`displaying on said touchscreen a plurality of source icons
`corresponding to said plurality of sources of medical imaging
`data in order to allow a user of said system to select a particular
`source of medical imaging data; and software executing on said
`computer for displaying on said touchscreen a plurality of
`destination icons corresponding to said plurality of destinations
`in order to allow the user to select at least one particular
`destination to receive the medical imaging data supplied by the
`selected source” .........................................................................60
`15. Claim 80: “A system as claimed in claim 79, further comprising
`software executing on said computer for displaying on said
`touchscreen medical images generated from the medical
`imaging data supplied by the selected source” .........................60
`16. Claim 81: “A system as claimed in claim 80, wherein the
`medical images are displayed between the plurality of source
`icons and the plurality of destination icons” .............................61
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GROUND 2: Salandro in view of Visual Monitor render claims 3 and
`81 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .....................................................61
`1.
`Claim 1 Preamble ......................................................................61
`2.
`Claim 1[a] .................................................................................63
`3.
`Claim 1[b] .................................................................................63
`4.
`Claim 1[c] .................................................................................65
`5.
`Claim 1[d] .................................................................................65
`6.
`Claim 1[e] .................................................................................67
`7.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................68
`8.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................72
`9.
`Claim 79 Preamble ....................................................................75
`10. Claim 79[a] ...............................................................................75
`11. Claim 79[b] ...............................................................................75
`12. Claim 79[c] ...............................................................................75
`13. Claim 79[d] ...............................................................................75
`14. Claim 79[e] ...............................................................................76
`15. Claim 80 ....................................................................................76
`16. Claim 81 ....................................................................................76
`GROUND 3: Claims 3 and 81 are not patentably distinct from claims
`1, 2, 79, and 80 of the ’420 Patent in view of Benevento and
`optionally in view of Elia, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and as required by
`37 C.F.R. 42.73(d)(3). .........................................................................76
`1.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................78
`2.
`Claim 81 ....................................................................................78
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`D. GROUND 4: Claims 3 and 81 are not patentably distinct from claims
`1, 2, 79, and 80 of the ’420 Patent in view of Visual Monitor under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 and as required by 37 C.F.R. 42.73(d)(3)......................79
`1.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................79
`2.
`Claim 81 ....................................................................................79
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................80
`
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 9
`Compare Valve Corp. v. Electric Scripting Prods. Inc., Case
`IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084, slip op. at 15 (PTAB Apr. 2,
`2019) (Paper 11) (precedential) ............................................................................ 2
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case
`IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 15-16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19)
`(precedential) ........................................................................................................ 2
`Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361(Fed. Cir.
`2016) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 7, 30, 61
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 23
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 CPR. § 42.100 et seq........................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 6
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 8
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O10—8803—5110/7/AMERICAS
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- vii -
`- Vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,069,420
`EX. 1001
`US. Patent No. 8,069,420
`
`Ex. 1002
`EX. 1002
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 11/025,715,
`Prosecution History for US. Patent Application No. 11/025,715,
`which matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,069,420
`which matured into US. Patent No. 8,069,420
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Surati, Ph.D
`EX. 1003
`Declaration of Dr. Surati, Ph.D
`
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Dr. Theo Mandel, Ph.D
`EX. 1004
`Declaration of Dr. Theo Mandel, Ph.D
`
`
`Ex. 1005 Declaration of Jerry R. Salandro
`EX. 1005
`Declaration of Jerry R. Salandro
`
`Ex. 1006
`EX. 1006
`
`JP Patent Application No. JP2004-312468 and its certified English
`JP Patent Application No. JP2004-312468 and its certified English
`translation (“JP ’468”)
`translation (“JP ’468”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0161728
`EX. 1007 US. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0161728
`(“Benevento”)
`(“Benevento”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,791,601 (“Chang”)
`EX. 1008 US. Patent No. 6,791,601 (“Chang”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 9,176,643 (“Elia”)
`Ex. 1009 US. Patent No. 9,176,643 (“Elia”)
`
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,519,540 (“Salandro”)
`EX. 1010 US. Patent No. 6,519,540 (“Salandro”)
`
`
`Ex. 1011 Visual Monitor for Video Commander User’s Guide (“Visual
`EX. 1011
`Visual Monitor for Video Commander User’s Guide (“Visual
`Monitor”)
`Monitor”)
`
`
`Ex. 1012 Video Commander User’s Guide (“Video Commander”)
`EX. 1012
`Video Commander User’s Guide (“Video Commander”)
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 Video Commander PX-1600 Data Sheet
`
`Video Commander PX-1600 Data Sheet
`
`EX. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,252,633 (“Obata”)
`EX. 1014 US. Patent No. 7,252,633 (“Obata”)
`
`Ex. 1015
`Tektronix 465 Oscilloscope Instruction Manual
`EX. 1015
`Tektronix 465 Oscilloscope Instruction Manual
`
`
`Ex. 1016 Crestron ProductsPlusPeople 2003 Catalog
`EX. 1016
`Crestron ProductsPlusPeople 2003 Catalog
`
`Ex. 1017 Deposition of David W. Drake (“DWD”)
`EX. 1017
`Deposition of DaVid W. Drake (“DWD”)
`
`Ex. 1018 Outpatient Surgery Magazine, “Thinking of Buying,”
`EX. 1018
`Outpatient Surgery Magazine, “Thinking of Buying,”
`
`Ex. 1019 Yamaha PM5DPM5D-RH V2 Owner's Manual
`
`Yamaha PM5DPM5D-RH V2 Owner's Manual
`
`EX. 1019
`
`
`
`O10—8803—5110/7/AMERICAS
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1020 Deposition of Bradley L. Caldwell (“BLC”)
`EX. 1020
`Deposition of Bradley L. Caldwell (“BLC”)
`
`Ex. 1021 Drake Deposition Ex. 28
`EX. 1021
`Drake Deposition EX. 28
`
`Ex. 1022
`EX. 1022
`
`The Elements of User Interface Design
`The Elements of User Interface Design
`
`Ex. 1023
`EX. 1023
`
`The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (2003)
`The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (2003)
`
`Ex. 1024 User Interface Design
`EX. 1024
`User Interface Design
`
`Ex. 1025 Caldwell Deposition Ex. 16
`EX. 1025
`Caldwell Deposition EX. 16
`
`
`Ex. 1026 Caldwell Deposition Ex. 32
`EX. 1026
`Caldwell Deposition EX. 32
`
`
`Ex. 1027 Deposition of Eric Gould Bear Transcript
`EX. 1027
`Deposition of Eric Gould Bear Transcript
`
`Ex. 1028 Random House Dictionary
`EX. 1028
`Random House Dictionary
`
`Ex. 1029 Oxford American Dictionary
`EX. 1029
`Oxford American Dictionary
`
`Ex. 1030 Merriam Webster Dictionary
`EX. 1030 Merriam Webster Dictionary
`
`
`Ex. 1031 American Heritage Desk Dictionary
`EX. 1031
`American Heritage Desk Dictionary
`
`EX. 1032
`IPR2015-00677 Institution Decision
`
`
`IPR2015-00677 Institution Decision
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1033 Val Med Advanced Surgery Suites
`EX. 1033
`Val Med Advanced Surgery Suites
`
`Ex. 1034
`EX. 1034
`
`STERIS Corporation’s Opening Claim Construction Submission
`STERIS Corporation’s Opening Claim Construction Submission
`
`Ex. 1035
`EX. 1035
`
`STERIS Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Submission
`STERIS Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Submission
`
`Ex. 1036 Deposition of Dr. Theo Mandel, Ph.D Transcript
`EX. 1036
`Deposition of Dr. Theo Mandel, Ph.D Transcript
`
`EX. 1037
`IPR2015-00678 Institution Decision
`
`
`IPR2015-00678 Institution Decision
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`Ex. 1038 Deposition of Dr. Surati, Ph.D Transcript
`EX. 1038
`Deposition of Dr. Surati, Ph.D Transcript
`
`Ex. 1039
`EX. 1039
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1040
`EX. 1040
`
`In Service Vol5_Spring03 Olympus Alpha OR
`In Service VolS_Spring03 Olympus Alpha OR
`
`Ex. 1041 Craig Moore Declaration
`EX. 1041
`Craig Moore Declaration
`
`
`
`O10—8803—5110/7/AMERICAS
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1042
`EX. 1042
`
`Programming Microsoft DirectShow excerpt
`Programming Microsoft DirectShow excerpt
`
`
`
`
`
`O10—8803—5110/7/AMERICAS
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- xi -
`-Xi-
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`STERIS Corporation (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 3 and 81 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,069,420 (“the ’420
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`et seq. According to USPTO records, the ’420 patent is assigned to Karl Storz
`
`Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The claims of the ’420 patent are directed and relate to the control and
`
`communication of medical imaging data. The application for the ’420 patent was
`
`rejected eight times before 84 claims were allowed. After allowance, 44 of those
`
`claims were challenged in two instituted IPRs brought by Stryker Corporation,
`
`IPR2015-00676 and IPR2015-00677 (“the Stryker IPRs”). After institution, Patent
`
`Owner disclaimed 42 of those claims, including claims 1, 2, 79, and 80, and adverse
`
`judgments were entered in both proceedings. Challenged claim 3 depends from
`
`claims 1 and 2, and challenged claim 81 depends from claims 79 and 80.
`
`It is evident that the challenged claims of the ’420 patent were improvidently
`
`granted. The detailed analysis in Section IX, infra, demonstrates claims 3 and 81
`
`are unpatentable over the prior art, and are not patentably distinct from cancelled
`
`claims 2 and 80. Petitioner therefore has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to the same. Moreover, the various other considerations do not justify the
`
`Board exercising its discretion in favor of denying review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`First, the grounds raised are not based on the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d). None of the references relied on were cited during prosecution of the ’420
`
`Patent, or relied on in the Stryker IPRs involving this patent.
`
`Second, the non-exclusive factors announced in General Plastic Industrial
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 15-16 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (precedential), favor institution. STERIS has not
`
`previously challenged the ’420 Patent in an IPR. Stryker and STERIS were not co-
`
`defendants in a single infringement action brought by KSEA under the ’420 Patent.
`
`KSEA did not charge STERIS with infringement until almost two years after the
`
`Stryker IPRs ended and delayed filing suit for another 10 months. Ex. 1041, at 2.
`
`Thus, STERIS did not wait until an institution decision in the Stryker IPRs to file
`
`the Petition. Compare Valve Corp. v. Electric Scripting Prods. Inc., Case IPR2019-
`
`00062, -00063, -00084, slip op. at 15 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (Paper 11) (precedential)
`
`(denying institution when a party filed follow-on petitions after denial of IPR request
`
`by the party’s co-defendant). Further, STERIS competes against Stryker, STERIS
`
`had no involvement in the Stryker IPRs, neither expert relied on by STERIS here
`
`offered an opinion in the Stryker IPRs, and the entirety of the prior art relied upon
`
`in the Petition was not uncovered until June 8, 2019. Ex. 1041, at 3. Under the
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`circumstances, it cannot be seriously contended that the Petition raises efficiency
`
`concerns underpinning General Plastics.
`
`Third, the district court judge presiding over the Related Litigation has
`
`confirmed the case would be stayed if STERIS filed an IPR petition, by agreement
`
`of KSEA and STERIS. Ex. 1041, at 4. This decision reflects the parties’ judgment
`
`that the relevant factors, including issue simplification, the stage of the case, the lack
`
`of unfair prejudice to KSEA, and the reduced burdens on the parties and court, favor
`
`a stay. Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361(Fed. Cir. 2016). In
`
`other words, the court and parties desire to defer to an efficient AIA procedure in the
`
`first instance, as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 39-
`
`40 (2011) (Inter partes review is an “efficient system for challenging patents that
`
`should not have issued”).
`
`For these reasons, and as the grounds raised in this Petition meet the relevant
`
`standards for instituting an IPR, the Board should exercise its discretion in favor of
`
`granting institution.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies STERIS Corporation
`
`and Black Diamond Video, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Related Litigation
`The ’420 patent is at issue in a co-pending litigation captioned as Karl Storz
`
`Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. STERIS Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-01691-DAP
`
`(N.D. Ohio) (“Related Litigation”), the complaint in which was filed on July 20,
`
`2018, and subsequently served on STERIS Corporation on July 23, 2018.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`Lead counsel - Steven M. Auvil (Reg. No. 40,492).
`
`Backup counsel - Tamara Fraizer (Reg. No. 51,699) and Bryan J. Jaketic (Reg.
`
`No. 56,280).
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served in accordance with the following:
`
`Address:
`
`Steven Auvil or Bryan Jaketic,
`Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
`127 Public Square,
`4900 Key Tower,
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`
`steven.auvil@squirepb.com,
`tamara.fraizer@squirepb.com,
`bryan.jaketic@squirepb.com, and
`sfripdocket@squirepb.com
`
`Telephone: (216) 479-8500
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Fax:
`
`(216) 479-8780
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic filing.
`
`III. POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`petition. The above-identified Lead and Back-up Counsel are registered
`
`practitioners.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the USPTO to charge any fees due during this
`
`proceeding to Deposit Account No. 07-1850.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies the ’420 patent is
`
`available for IPR and Petitioner and the real parties-in-interest are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein. The ’420 patent has
`
`not been subject to a completed estoppel based proceeding of the AIA, and the
`
`complaint referenced above in Section II was served within the last 12 months. None
`
`of the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s real parties-in-interest, or the Petitioner’s privies,
`
`have been served with any other complaint alleging infringement of the ’420 patent.
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`A.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the ’420 patent is
`
`requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the ’420
`
`patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), or (e), as set forth below:
`
`(1) Japanese Application JP 2004-312468 (“JP ’468,” attached as Ex. 1006)1
`
`published on November 4, 2004. JP ’468 was published before the filing date of the
`
`’420 patent.
`
`(2) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0161728 to Benevento (“Benevento,”
`
`attached as Ex. 1007) filed on February 14, 2003. Benevento was filed before the
`
`filing date of the ’420 patent.
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,791,601 issued to Chang et al. (“Chang,” attached as
`
`Ex. 1008) filed on November 11, 1999. Chang was filed before the filing date of the
`
`’420 patent.
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 9,176,643 issued to Elia et al. (“Elia,” attached as
`
`Ex. 1009) filed on May 17, 2004. Elia was filed before the filing date of the ’420
`
`patent.
`
`
`1 JP ’468 is submitted with a certified English translation.
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 6,519,540 to Salandro (“Salandro,” attached as Ex. 1010)
`
`issued on February 11, 2003. Salandro issued more than one year before the filing
`
`date of the ’420 patent.
`
`(6) Iris Technologies, Inc. Visual Monitor for Video Commander User’s
`
`Guide (“Visual Monitor,” attached as Ex. 1011) published on February 14, 1997, as
`
`confirmed by Jerry Salandro. (Ex. 1005, ¶9.) Visual Monitor published more than
`
`one year before the filing date of the ’420 patent. (Id., ¶6.)
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`i.
`
`Claims 3 and 81 are rendered obvious by JP ’468 in view of Benevento
`
`and optionally in view of Chang and Elia, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 3 and 81 are rendered obvious by Salandro in view of Visual
`
`Monitor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`iii. Claims 3 and 81 are not patentably distinct from finally refused or
`
`canceled claims 2 and 80 in view of Benevento under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i).
`
`vi. Claims 3 and 81 are not patentably distinct from finally refused or
`
`canceled claims 2 and 80 in view of Visual Monitor under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i).
`
`For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on prior art references
`
`other than those listed above. Other references discussed herein are provided merely
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`to show the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding
`
`that the Board erred in refusing to consider “evidence of the background
`
`understanding of skilled artisans”).
`
`B. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under the Statutory
`Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), an explanation of how claims 1-16 of
`
`the ’420 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, is
`
`provided in Section IX, below. The analysis includes the identification of where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art. Petitioner has at least a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on these grounds.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to
`
`the challenges raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenges, are provided in Section IX, below.
`
`VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Declaration Evidence
`This Petition is supported by the Declaration testimony of Dr. Rajeev Surati,
`
`Ph.D. (“Surati Decl.,” attached as Ex. 1003) and Dr. Theo Mandel, Ph.D. (“Mandel
`
`Decl.,” attached as Ex. 1004). These declarations describe the ’420 patent, a person
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant period (a “POSITA”), the state of the art of
`
`the ’420 patent, the scope and content of the prior art compared to the claims of the
`
`’420 patent, and the rationales for combining prior art elements. This Petition is
`
`further supported by the Declaration testimony of Jerry R. Salandro (“Salandro
`
`Decl.,” attached as Ex. 1005). This declaration authenticates Visual Monitor and
`
`two other documents as prior art to the ’420 patent.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`B.
`The level of skill in the art is generally evidenced by the prior art references.
`
`See Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art
`
`references show a POSITA would have either (1) at least a Bachelor’s Degree in a
`
`field relating to computers, computer science, computer programming, broadcast
`
`networking, or electrical engineering, and two years of experience with computer
`
`user interface programming and design, and system or broadcast networking or (2)
`
`some technical training with computers and/or audio-visual equipment and at least
`
`five years of experience with computer user interface programming and design, and
`
`system or broadcast networking. (See Ex. 1003, ¶35; Ex. 1004, ¶29.)
`
`C. Background of the Technology
`At the time of the ’420 patent, medical imaging devices used during minimally
`
`invasive procedures, such as endoscopic, arthroscopic, and laparoscopic procedures,
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`allowed a surgeon to view a patient’s internal anatomical structure and capture data
`
`during the procedure. (Ex. 1004, ¶33; see also Ex. 1014; Ex. 1040.) The medical
`
`imaging system included at least a camera or medical endoscope and a display. (Id.)
`
`The information and images collected during the procedure could be sent to different
`
`screens or other remote devices. (Id.) Surgical suites allowed for integration of
`
`audiovisual devices into medical equipment and allowed the medical images to be
`
`live streamed to various screens or recording devices. (Id.) Control of these devices
`
`was done utilizing software with complex input and output commands to route the
`
`medical imaging information, and at least a computer and switching equipment was
`
`used to transmit the captured imaging information from the device to a screen and/or
`
`storage location. (Id.)
`
`As explained by Dr. Surati, these medical systems used technology that was
`
`available for and used in other applications requiring video routing, such as
`
`broadcasting, home entertainment, and conference rooms. (Ex. 1003, ¶38.)
`
`By the time of the ’420 patent, several software tools were available for use
`
`in building video routing systems, including software offered by Crestron, AMX and
`
`others. (Id.) For example, in early 2000, Microsoft introduced DirectShow, which
`
`allowed one to create multiple media A/V control systems with built-in preview,
`
`and, a book published in 2003 entitled “Programming Microsoft DirectShow for
`
`Digital Video and Television (Developer Reference) shows how to create the
`
`
`
`010-8803-5110/7/AMERICAS
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`switchable signal control flow graphs that would allow one to construct the
`
`underlying systems discussed in the patent. (Id.)
`
`The DirectShow technology, and others like it, commoditized the complicated
`
`issues around integrating A/V technology with computers, making it possible for
`
`persons with more limited programming skills to develop software for such systems.
`
`(Id., ¶39.)
`
`Dr. Mandel has also described the state of the art at the time of the ’420 patent
`
`with reference to deposition testimony from