`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00126
`Case IPR2020-00127
`Patent 8,048,032
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CORRECTED CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`U.S. PATENT 8,048,032 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 23-25 ARE SUPPORTED UNDER § 112 ............. 1
`II.
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 23-25 ARE NOT INDEFINITE ............................. 8
`III.
`IV. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS OF UNPATENTABILITY ARE NOT
`PERSUASIVE ................................................................................................. 9
`A.
`Claims 23-25 Are Patentable Over Itou in View of Either
`Ressemann or Kataishi .......................................................................... 9
`1.
`Substitute Claim 23 ..................................................................... 9
`a.
`“Interventional Cardiology Devices Are Insertable” ....... 9
`b.
`Complex Side Opening ................................................... 11
`i. Itou Plus Ressemann’s Collar ................................... 12
`ii. Itou Plus Kataishi’s Distal Tip ................................. 15
`Size and “Coaxial” Limitations ...................................... 17
`c.
`Substitute Claim 24 ................................................................... 18
`2.
`Substitute Claim 25 ................................................................... 18
`3.
`Substitute Claims 23-25 Are Patentable Over Kontos in View of
`Ressemann and Takahashi .................................................................. 19
`1.
`Substitute Claim 23 ................................................................... 19
`a.
`“Interventional Cardiology Devices Are Insertable” ..... 19
`b.
`Complex Side Opening ................................................... 19
`c.
`0.056 Inch Inner Diameter Tube In 6 French Guide
`Catheter and “Coaxial” Limitations ............................... 21
`Substitute Claim 24 ................................................................... 24
`Substitute Claim 25 ................................................................... 25
`i
`
`2.
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Substitute Claims 23-25 Are Patentable Over Kontos and Kataishi ... 25
`C.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`V.
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE............................................................................ 27
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE ........................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 3
`Ashley Furniture Indus. v. Lifestyle Enter.,
`574 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ................................................................ 22
`Bilstad v. Wakalopulos,
`386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 22
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oil-Field Prods., Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 3
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................2, 4
`Datascope Corp. v. Kontron, Inc.,
`611 F. Supp. 889 (D. Mass. 1985) ........................................................................ 22
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 8
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,
`93 F.3d 1572 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................... 2
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................3, 4
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 4
`In re Global IP Holdings,
`927 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 5
`In re Peters,
`723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`In re Rasmussen,
`650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .............................................................................. 2
`In re Schweickert,
`676 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 21
`Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., Inc.,
`228 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 3
`PowerOasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 4
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 1, 2, 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Teleflex submits this Reply in Support of Corrected Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend U.S. Patent 8,048,032, with the Second Declaration of Peter T. Keith in
`
`Support of Motions to Amend (“Ex-2243”). Teleflex submits that Petitioner has
`
`failed to show that any of the substitute claims presented in this motion is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 23-25 ARE SUPPORTED UNDER § 112
`Petitioner’s § 112 attack on claim 23 is unfounded, because the claim recites
`
`a “substantially rigid” side opening. Petitioner’s quote of the claim language omits
`
`this language; its argument ignores it. Petitioner’s intent not to challenge this
`
`limitation under § 112 is supported by its appropriate decision not to challenge
`
`under § 112 claim 44 of the ’380 patent, which recites “a substantially rigid
`
`partially cylindrical portion proximal to a distal end of the substantially rigid
`
`portion.” Petitioner also misreads claim 23 to “require a side opening that is
`
`separate from (distal to) the ‘substantially rigid portion.’” Opp., 1. Petitioner’s
`
`expert confirms that “there are just two separate portions [of the device] in this
`
`claim,” Ex-2242, 132:18-20, the flexible tip portion and the substantially rigid
`
`portion, and that, as a POSITA would understand, “the portion of the device that
`
`includes the side opening must be part of the substantially rigid portion,” id.,
`
`132:21-25. Ex-2243, ¶16. Dependent claim 9 supports Teleflex’s construction.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 23-25 lack written description because they do
`
`not expressly claim the side opening as “part of the substantially rigid segment.”
`
`Opp., 1-2 (emphasis by Petitioner). Petitioner’s argument fails as a matter of both
`
`law and fact. As a legal matter, there is nothing improper with presenting claims
`
`that are broader than the preferred embodiments. See Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386
`
`F.3d 1116, 1123-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (collecting cases); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
`
`v. United States Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (if the
`
`inventor “did not consider the precise location of the lockout to be an element of
`
`his invention, he was free to draft claim 24 broadly … to exclude the lockout’s
`
`exact location as a limitation of the claimed invention…. Such a claim would not
`
`be unsupported by the specification even though it would be literally infringed by
`
`undisclosed embodiments.”). This includes reissues: “[T]hat a claim may be
`
`broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no
`
`moment. Indeed, the statutory provision for broadened claims in reissue
`
`applications is intended to meet precisely the situation in which a patentee has
`
`claimed ‘less’ than he had a right to claim.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1981).
`
`Many cases have found claims to comply with § 112 even when the claims
`
`are broader than the disclosure. See, e.g., Ethicon, 93 F.3d at 1582; Cordis Corp.
`
`v. Medtronic AVE, 339 F.3d 1352, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim broadly
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`covering tubular members having only complete slots, only half-slots, or any
`
`combination of the two supported by specification disclosed only alternating
`
`complete slots and half-slots); Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., Inc., 228 F.3d
`
`1365, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (claims covering non-identical half-shells
`
`adequately supported even though the figures showed only identical half shells); In
`
`re Peters, 723 F.2d 891, 893 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (reissue claims covering both tapered
`
`and non-tapered tips supported by disclosure of only tapered tips; “[t]he broadened
`
`claims merely omit an unnecessary limitation that had restricted one element of the
`
`invention to the exact and non-critical shape disclosed in the original patent”).
`
`There are two exceptions to the general principle that claims can be broader
`
`than the preferred embodiments: the technology is unpredictable, or the
`
`specification makes clear that the unclaimed aspect is critical to the invention.
`
`Bilstad, 385 F.3d at 1125; see also Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oil-Field
`
`Prods., Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Petitioner’s cited cases fall
`
`within those exceptions and are readily distinguishable. Indeed, the Federal Circuit
`
`has expressly narrowed two of the four to their facts. In Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst
`
`Marion Roussel, 314 F.3d 1313, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit
`
`clarified the limited reach of Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998), noting that “[t]he court in Gentry concluded that the inventor had
`
`clearly expressed in the written description that he considered his invention to be
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`limited to the specific location of the controls on the console on the sofa (‘the only
`
`possible location’) and that any variation was ‘outside the stated purpose of the
`
`invention.’” See also Cordis, 339 F.3d at 1365 (distinguishing Gentry Gallery).
`
`The Federal Circuit similarly construed Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998), narrowly, stating the patent at issue had distinguished the prior art
`
`as inferior and touted the advantages of its embodiment. Bilstad, 386 F.3d at 1125.
`
`Medtronic’s other two cases are similarly inapt. In ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris
`
`Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the specification disclosed only
`
`medical valves that required spikes, while the claims did not recite spikes at all.
`
`The Federal Circuit concluded that a POSITA reading the specification would not
`
`understand that the inventor had invented a spikeless medical valve. Id. In
`
`PowerOasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1301, 1310 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008), the Federal Circuit ruled that the claims, which were part of a CIP, were not
`
`entitled to a parent application’s priority date because the CIP “added considerable
`
`new language to the specification, which the district court characterized as
`
`‘substantial new matter.’”
`
`
`
`Petitioner takes the position that by 2005 the technology at issue in this case
`
`was mature and, unlike some biotech or chemical arts, not generally considered
`
`unpredictable. Ex-2242, 21:13-22:17; Ex-1900, ¶178; Ex-1807, ¶¶207-16. The
`
`maturity of the catheter field at the time of the invention supports a finding that
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`there is sufficient written description support. In re Global IP Holdings, 927 F.3d
`
`1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`The disclosure does not indicate that putting the side opening specifically in
`
`the substantially rigid portion is critical to the invention. Ex-2124, ¶33; Ex-2243,
`
`¶¶27-43. First, the “Summary of the Invention” describes the invention broadly,
`
`indicating that the rigid portion only “preferably” has a cutout portion constituting
`
`a side opening. Ex-1003, 8:17-9:5. Second, Petitioner’s expert agrees that the
`
`disclosure shows a perpendicular end opening, and that at least Figures 20-21 show
`
`that the end opening is part of the tubular portion that is made of polymer. Ex-
`
`1919, ¶25; Ex-2242, 41:15-42:7, id., 29:8-20, 30:23-31:17, 40:7-16.1 Petitioner
`
`and its expert agree that claims that do not require a side opening at all do not have
`
`a written description problem. Ex-2242, 44:14-45:17. Petitioner did not dispute
`
`that proposed claim 43 presented in the ’380 patent’s motion to amend lacked
`
`written description, specifically because it does not claim a side opening. Id.,
`
`45:18-46:7, 46:22-47:4; 47:21-48:10; ʼ380 MTA Opp.; Ex-2243, ¶30. Third, while
`
`
`1 One of Petitioner’s experts acknowledged that Figure 1 of the patent may show a
`
`side opening. Ex-2241, 56:24-57:13. The opening in Figure 1 is shown to be in
`
`the reinforced portion 18, which is not part of the rigid portion. Ex-1003, 14:7-8,
`
`18:18-19; Ex-2243, ¶33.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`the disclosure shows both end opening and side opening embodiments, nowhere
`
`does it state that either is critical to the invention. Ex-2243, ¶30; Ex-2242, 65:19-
`
`25, 75:21-24; 79:19-82:1; 82:11-83:11. Simply put, if having the opening be a side
`
`opening is not critical to the invention, then the specific location or rigidity of the
`
`side opening cannot be critical, either.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that, if a side opening is recited, it must be in a
`
`“substantially rigid portion,” borders on implausible. It ignores that the proximal
`
`portion of the tubular structure can be more rigid than a side opening in the
`
`“substantially rigid” portion, for example, where the side opening is made of more
`
`flexible Nitinol and/or has relief cuts. Ex-2243, ¶¶38-40. Where the side opening
`
`is less rigid than the tube that is just distal to it, it makes little sense to require that
`
`the side opening be in “the substantially rigid portion,” because the proximal
`
`portion of the tube would be at least as substantially rigid. Clear rigidity-based
`
`demarcations would be inconsistent with the understanding of a POSITA. Ex-
`
`2243, ¶¶37-38. This is particularly true because the specification expressly teaches
`
`that the portion of the substantially rigid portion that has the side opening can be
`
`made flexible. Id., ¶36; Ex-2242, 54:7-14, 57:1-58:7.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s argument ignores that a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention would have known that the side opening could be made out of metal or
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`polymer,2 with relief cuts to increase flexibility, or varying material thicknesses.
`
`Ex-2243, ¶37; Ex-2242, 62:6-63:16, 89:23-90:3; Ex-2241, 150:3-155:1. It is
`
`undisputed that the written description analysis must be conducted through the lens
`
`of a POSITA. Ex-2242, 90:4-16. Petitioner has also not identified any instances
`
`where Teleflex distinguished any prior art or traversed any office action rejection
`
`based on the side opening being in the substantially rigid portion. Id., 117:4-
`
`118:12; 99:11-100:14. Indeed, the file history of Teleflex’s related ’379 patent
`
`confirms that the specification provides written description support for claims that
`
`do not specifically require the side opening to be in the substantially rigid portion.
`
`In an office action response, Teleflex changed “providing a segment defining a
`
`side opening” to “defining a side opening portion,” Ex-1003, 229, 232, and the
`
`claims were allowed, id., 680-88, without specifically stating which portion of the
`
`device the side opening is defined into. A POSITA reading this file history would
`
`understand that the basis of the rejection was that the claims originally required
`
`providing a discrete side opening segment portion during fabrication. Ex-2124,
`
`
`2 Petitioner was unable to argue that the side opening must be made out of metal,
`
`because the application discloses that “[o]ther substantially rigid materials may be
`
`used as well,” Ex-1003, 15:5; id., 16:18-19, which Petitioner’s expert agreed
`
`includes polymers, Ex-2242, 59:10-60:17, 61:5-12.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`¶43. The amended claim language, reciting “defining a side opening portion”
`
`without specifying whether the side opening is formed into the reinforced or the
`
`substantially rigid portion, overcame the written description rejection. See id.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 23-25 ARE NOT INDEFINITE
`“[A] claim … is unpatentable for indefiniteness if the claim, read in light of
`
`the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fails to inform,
`
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
`
`Memorandum re: Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-
`
`Grant Proceedings (January 6, 2021), 3. Petitioner misreads claim 23, claiming it
`
`“recites a ‘substantially rigid side opening’ that is outside of both the ‘flexible tip
`
`portion’ and the ‘substantially rigid portion.’” Opp., 11. But the claim does not
`
`recite a separate side opening “segment,” and there is no basis for requiring the
`
`side opening to be positioned outside of the substantially rigid segment. Ex-2243,
`
`¶45. Petitioner’s expert testimony refutes Petitioner’s argument. See Part II above.
`
`Petitioner challenges substitute claim 24 as indefinite because it recites that
`
`the substantially rigid portion is “connected to” the flexible tip portion. Opp., 11.
`
`Petitioner’s argument incorrectly assumes that “connected to” requires a direct
`
`connection. Ex-2243, ¶46. “Connected to” includes direct and indirect
`
`connections. E.g., Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336,
`
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Its expert confirms “the specification teaches an indirect
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`connection, such that the flexible tip portion is connected to the reinforced portion,
`
`which is connected to the substantially rigid portion.” Ex-1902 at 36 n.5, 93 n.10.
`
`Petitioner’s argument ignores that claim 24 recites that the flexible tip extends out
`
`the guide catheter while a portion of the reinforced portion extends within the
`
`guide catheter and a proximal portion of the substantially rigid portion extends
`
`through the hemostatic valve. This necessarily means that the flexible tip portion
`
`is distal of the reinforced portion, which is distal of the substantially rigid portion,
`
`as is disclosed in the application. Ex-1003, 14:7-9, 16:12-19; Ex-2243, ¶46.
`
`IV. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS OF UNPATENTABILITY ARE NOT
`PERSUASIVE
`A. Claims 23-25 Are Patentable Over Itou3 in View of Either
`Ressemann or Kataishi
`1.
`Substitute Claim 23
`a.
`“Interventional Cardiology Devices Are Insertable”
`Substitute claim 23 recites a tubular structure “through which interventional
`
`cardiology devices are insertable.” Properly construed, this term requires that at
`
`least “guidewires, balloon catheters, stents, and stent catheters” be insertable into
`
`and through the device. Ex-1003 at 3:16-18 (emphasis added); IPR2020-00126,
`
`Ex-2138, ¶¶102-13. Petitioner’s expert agrees that the specification’s language
`
`means that “the invention [must] be able to deliver stents [and] stent catheters.”
`
`
`3 Itou is not prior art, but Teleflex nevertheless addresses it substantively herein.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex-2242, 85:21-86:21. Petitioner argues that “interventional cardiology devices
`
`(e.g., PTCA balloons and stents) were insertable through the lumen of Itou’s
`
`‘flexible tip portion,’” Opp., 13 (citing “Ex. 2127, 2; Ex. 1900, ¶18”). But the
`
`cited evidence does not support that statement. Ex-2127 is a GuideLiner
`
`development document that addresses only the size of the distal tube, not
`
`obstructions caused by a pushwire. Unlike GuideLiner, Itou’s pushwire obstructs
`
`access to its tubular lumen. Ex-2243, ¶55. Ex-1900, ¶18 merely states that a
`
`“[p]rotective catheter (5) is insertable,” but that is not an interventional cardiology
`
`device. The application differentiates between its “tapered inner catheter” and
`
`“interventional cardiology devices” designed to provide treatment, IPR2020-
`
`00126, Ex-2138, ¶111, and Petitioner’s expert agrees such a “tapered inner
`
`catheter” is equivalent to a protective catheter as termed in Itou. Ex-2238, 26:2-10.
`
`Itou’s protective catheter does not provide treatment, nor could it, because a
`
`protective catheter protects healthy tissue. IPR2020-00126, Reply, 5; Ex-2243,
`
`¶54. And even if Itou’s protective catheter was somehow considered to be an
`
`interventional cardiology device, it would be just one device, which would not
`
`meet the “interventional cardiology devices” element.
`
`In his declaration’s background section, Petitioner’s expert cites an
`
`argument from another of his declarations (Ex-1900, ¶54, citing Ex-1806, §III(A))
`
`that there were stents with outer diameters (bare crossing profiles) less than Itou’s
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`effective 0.046 inch lumen diameter. A stent, however, is a long, bulky, stiff
`
`device that requires space beyond its bare crossing profile to move through a
`
`catheter, especially around bends. Ex-2243, ¶56. For that reason, manufacturers
`
`of the cited stents require in their instructions for use a minimum 5 French (0.056
`
`inches) catheter, e.g., Ex-1802, 25 (the “minimal internal diameter of guiding
`
`catheter” for the 0.038 inch profile Tsunami stent is “0.056 inch, 5 Fr”)—far larger
`
`than Itou’s 0.046 inch proximal opening. Ex-2243, ¶56.
`
`Complex Side Opening
`b.
`Petitioner admits that Itou does not disclose claim 23’s complex side
`
`opening: “a first inclined region, a second inclined region, and a non-inclined
`
`concave track between the first and second inclined regions.” Teleflex’s claimed
`
`complex side opening is important to the operation of the guide extension catheter
`
`for which Teleflex’s invention created a market; that is why Petitioner and every
`
`other competitor copied it. IPR2020-00126, POR, 50-57. Yet Petitioner does not
`
`point to a single reference with a complex proximal side opening, let alone such an
`
`opening that is used to receive interventional cardiology devices, let alone while
`
`inside a guide catheter deep in the vasculature, let alone as part of a guide
`
`extension catheter sized to closely fit within the guide catheter. Ressemann
`
`expressly taught the difficulty of delivering devices such as stent catheters through
`
`a tube’s angled opening: Without a reverse bevel Petitioner’s combinations do not
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`use, “[s]tent delivery catheters … are particularly subject to hanging up on the
`
`proximal end of the evacuation head[’s angled opening].” Ex-1008, 25:27-29. Yet
`
`Ressemann buries the collar tab that Petitioner so dearly relies on deep inside his
`
`device, such that it has no role in shaping Ressemann’s side opening. Ex-2243,
`
`¶¶58-51. And the shape at the distal end of Kataishi’s suction catheter has no
`
`concave track, has a significantly different rigidity profile, and is for a completely
`
`different purpose—improving suction by allowing that distal end to flex over a
`
`thrombus. Ex-2243, ¶¶67-81. Petitioner transparently uses Teleflex’s claims as
`
`roadmaps to pick and choose elements from disparate prior art, using hindsight to
`
`string them together.
`
`Itou Plus Ressemann’s Collar
`i.
`Petitioner relies on Ressemann’s collar for a complex side opening. But
`
`
`
`Ressemann’s own device does not have a complex side opening. Ex-1008, Figs.
`
`1A, 16A. Petitioner’s proposed combination also fails because a POSITA would
`
`not be motivated to myopically fixate on Ressemann’s support collar in the first
`
`place, absent hindsight. Ex-2243, ¶¶58-66. The alleged first “inclined region”
`
`(Ressemann’s collar tab 2141b’s tip) is buried inside shaft 2120 under many layers
`
`of material. Id., ¶61. Unless using claim 23 as a roadmap, a POSITA would not
`
`extract this lone component from the complex evacuation sheath assembly (where
`
`it neither provides a first incline or concave track, nor performs any guiding
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`function for an interventional cardiology device) and use it as a proximal opening
`
`in Itou’s structurally and functionally different suction catheter. Petitioner’s
`
`original engineering expert admitted to using a hindsight-focused approach when
`
`considering Ressemann, Ex-2137, 132:15-133:11 (“I’m not overly concerned with
`
`what the collar was being done before I chose to use it . . . . I’m more concerned
`
`about how I can use it in combination for what I want to do.”); see also Ex-2116,
`
`239:7-13. While Petitioner actively prevented its new engineering expert from
`
`considering how Ressemann actually uses collar 2141, Ex-1807, ¶82 (“I have not
`
`been asked” to opine on “how collar 2141 is incorporated into embodiment 2100”),
`
`he nevertheless admits that his “opinions are not based on how Ressemann is using
`
`the collar,” Ex-2239, 105:19-24, and that his proposed use of the collar “is
`
`different than the way Ressemann, itself, teaches,” id., 105:25-106:5. He also
`
`agreed that adding Ressemann’s collar to Itou would require at least six different
`
`modifications, further showing the hindsight nature of the combination. Ex-2241,
`
`51:23-53:1, 43:21-52:1; Ex-2243, ¶62. Because a POSITA would not be
`
`motivated to select the support collar in the first place, the question of how the
`
`support collar would be incorporated into Itou is moot.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s supposed motivations for adding Ressemann’s collar to
`
`Itou cannot withstand scrutiny. It asserts that adding Ressemann’s collar to Itou
`
`would “increase[] the area for receiving a stent and/or balloon catheter.” Opp., 17.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Either replacing Itou’s metal collar with Ressemann’s metal collar, or merely
`
`grafting the collar on top, however, would decrease the cross-sectional area of
`
`Itou’s tube opening. Ex-2243, ¶64. To the extent it was desired to increase the
`
`area of Itou’s proximal opening, a POSITA simply could make Itou’s angle
`
`shallower, Ex-2240, 157:4-5, 163:20-22, rather than extract a buried component
`
`from an unrelated device and graft it onto Itou’s design. Ex-2243, ¶65. Petitioner
`
`also asserts that Ressemann’s collar would “reinforce the proximal opening of the
`
`catheter lumen, as well as provide a flexibility transition between the distal tubular
`
`structure and the proximal shaft.” Opp., 17-18. But Petitioner fails to explain how
`
`Ressemann’s metal collar would be better than Itou’s metal pipe for reinforcing the
`
`tube’s opening, or why it would provide a flexibility transition superior to that of
`
`Itou’s design. Ex-2243, ¶66. The flexibility transition provided by the collar tab is
`
`specifically tailored to Ressemann’s Figure 16 embodiment, which has polymer
`
`lumens in the shaft that must maintain their patency. Id. Itou has no such lumens
`
`in the shaft, instead having a rigid weld between the metal tubular portion and
`
`metal pushwire. Id. Further, Petitioner’s expert cannot say how the rigidity of
`
`Itou’s metal pipe, or Itou’s pipe/wire weld, compares to that of Ressemann’s collar.
`
`Ex-2240, 163:25-164:11. Petitioner’s final justification—Ressemann’s collar
`
`should be used with Itou because both devices relate to “removing coronary vessel
`
`occlusions,” Opp., 18—proves too much. It also ignores that Itou and Ressemann
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`are directed to fundamentally different purposes. Ex-2243, ¶60; see also Ex-2240,
`
`169:21-170:9.
`
`Itou Plus Kataishi’s Distal Tip
`ii.
`Kataishi does not disclose a tube’s proximal side opening, let alone a
`
`complex side opening. The Board preliminarily concluded Petitioner failed to
`
`“explain sufficiently why the inclined shape of Kataishi’s distal opening would
`
`have been applicable to the angled partially cylindrical opening at the proximal end
`
`of Itou’s suction catheter.” IPR2020-00135, Paper 22 at 23. That remains the
`
`case. The primary purpose of the shape of Kataishi’s distal opening is to increase
`
`suction by allowing the distal tip to flex and conform over a thrombus on a vessel
`
`wall (“the concave portion helps to increase the flexibility of the distal tip of the
`
`catheter,” Ex-2240, 104:2-5)—a purpose that is irrelevant to Itou’s rigid metal
`
`proximal collar. IPR2020-00126, Ex-2138, ¶144; Ex-2145, ¶152.
`
`Petitioner’s argument also fails because Kataishi does not disclose a non-
`
`inclined concave track: Guidewire lumen 15 creates a ridge along the bottom of
`
`the tube’s distal end. Ex-2243, ¶¶68-70; Ex-2240, 109:11-13. Kataishi Figures 2
`
`and 12 show the guidewire lumen 15 running through the device’s distal tip, and
`
`Figure 4 shows that guidewire lumen 15 creates a ridge along the bottom of the
`
`tube. Ex-2240, 107:16-108:1. Sakurada appears to show this ridge. Ex-1055, Fig.
`
`1A. Any argument by Petitioner that there is a concave track despite the guidewire
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`lumen’s longitudinal ridge would be nonsensical, and its expert’s speculation that
`
`the guidewire lumen might be buried in the distal tip’s floor so there is no ridge
`
`finds no support in Kataishi. Kataishi undisputedly does not state that its distal tip
`
`has a concave track, and creation of such a design, for example by adding material
`
`to bury the guidewire lumen’s ridge, would be contrary to Kataishi’s multiple
`
`statements that its distal tip is designed to be “flexible.” Ex-1025, ¶¶10, 26, 27, 28,
`
`claim 22; Ex-2243, ¶70. Because Kataishi does not teach a concave track within
`
`the plain meaning of the term, much less a benefit or reason to provide one, it
`
`cannot be relied on to provide such a shape to Itou’s proximal end.
`
`Petitioner’s first and third alleged motivations to combine, “improved
`
`crossability,” Opp., 20-21, make no sense, because Kataishi’s distal tip crosses
`
`through the vasculature, while a guide extension catheter tube’s proximal end
`
`remains in the guide catheter. Ex-2243, ¶¶74-77. Its alleged motivation of
`
`“improved ability of an opening to accept material,” Opp., 20, ignores that
`
`“Kataishi teaches enhancing suction by reducing the gap to better cover the
`
`atheroma with the distal end of the suction catheter,” Ex-2240, 103:2-10; see Ex-
`
`1025, ¶27, which has no bearing on how the distal tip would perform if on a guide
`
`extension catheter within a guide catheter. Ex-2243, ¶78. Petitioner’s last
`
`justification—Itou’s collar should be given the shape of Kataishi’s distal tip
`
`because both references are directed to “removing occlusions from coronary
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`arteries using, inter alia, a catheter,” Opp., 21—again proves too much. Instead,
`
`Kataishi teaches away from Teleflex’s claims: Its “[i]mproved flexibility means
`
`the catheter can get [to] and cover the lesion,” which “enhances suction.” Ex-
`
`2240, 105:24-106:7. But a POSITA would recognize that using Kataishi’s
`
`deliberately-flexible distal tip on the proximal opening of a guide extension
`
`catheter’s tube would present a kink point. Ex-2243, ¶81. Indeed, Petitioner does
`
`not explain just how Kataishi is being combined with Itou—for example, is the
`
`shape of Kataishi cut into Itou’s pipe, is Kataishi’s distal end grafted onto Itou’s
`
`tube and how, etc. It does not attempt to reconcile Kataishi’s teaching that the
`
`distal tip’s shape is for “improving flexibility of the catheter distal end,” Ex-1025,
`
`¶27, with Itou’s opposite teaching that the pipe’s “proximal end portion 231 is
`
`secured firmly by being welded to the distal end of the wire-like portion,” Ex-
`
`1007, 4:33-34, to provide enough strength for the suction catheter to “be rotated,
`
`pushed or pulled,” id., 7:20-24. These conflicting motivations would prevent a
`
`POSITA from putting Kataishi’s distal tip on Itou’s proximal tube opening. Ex-
`
`2243, ¶¶76, 81-82.
`
`Size and “Coaxial” Limitations
`c.
`The asserted combination of Itou and Ressemann’s collar also fail to meet
`
`claim 23’s requirements that (1) the device be “for use with a standard 6 French
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`guide catheter” and have a tubular structure with an “inner diameter of at least
`
`0.056 inches,” a