U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Medtronic Vascular, Inc.
`
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (Lead Counsel)
`
` Alexis Cohen, Reg. No. 76,998 (First Back-up Counsel)
`
` Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed) (Back-up Counsel)
`Jennifer Graber, Reg. No. 80,059 (Back-up Counsel)
`Gilbert Smolenski, Reg. No. 78,549 (Back-up Counsel)
`
` Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
` 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TMT SYSTEMS, INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2021- 01532
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 26 OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,101,393
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest ........................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matter ....................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 4
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`III. Certification of Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................ 4
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 5
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 5
`B.
`Grounds of Challenge ............................................................................ 6
`C.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 6
`V. Overview of the State of the Art and the ’393 Patent ..................................... 7
`A.
`The State of the Art ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`The ’393 Patent ................................................................................... 13
`C.
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Prosecution ......................................... 17
`D.
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Continuation-in-Part Prosecution ....... 18
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 22
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 23
`A.
`“telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms” (claims 1, 2, 26) ..................... 24
`B.
`Remaining Claim Terms ..................................................................... 29
`VIII. Quiachon and Hartley Each, When Combined with Lazarus, Teach the
`Attachment Device Claimed in the ’393 Patent ............................................ 33
`IX. Ground I: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 26 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Quiachon in View of Lazarus ............................................................... 36
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 36
`B.
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 52
`C.
`Dependent Claim 4 .............................................................................. 55
`D. Dependent Claim 11 ............................................................................ 56
`E.
`Independent Claim 26 ......................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`X. Ground II: Challenged Claim 10 Would Have Been Obvious Over Quiachon
`in View of Lazarus in Further View of Lau .................................................. 61
`A. Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 61
`XI. Ground III: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Hartley in View of Lazarus .................................................... 64
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 64
`B.
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 76
`C.
`Dependent Claim 4 .............................................................................. 79
`D. Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 80
`E.
`Dependent Claim 11 ............................................................................ 80
`F.
`Independent Claim 26 ......................................................................... 82
`XII. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness Do Not Negate the Above
`Obviousness Grounds. ................................................................................... 86
`XIII. Discretionary Denial Under § 314(a) Is Not Warranted ............................... 86
`XIV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. M2m Solutions LLC,
`No. IPR2019-01204, 2021 WL 203148 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2021) ..................... 52
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 236 (2020) ................ 32
`Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 31
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`No. IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (Jan. 21, 2021) ................................................... 87
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`No. IPR2020-00441, Paper 13 (July 17, 2020) .................................................. 87
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Ironworks Patents, LLC,
`No. IPR2021-00420, Paper 11 (July 22, 2021) .................................................. 87
`Nokia of America Corp. v. IPCom, Gmbh & Co. KG,
`No. IPR2021-00533, Paper 10 (Aug. 12, 2021) ................................................. 88
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 86
`Rimfrost AS. v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS.,
`No. IRP2018-01730, 2020 WL 1080516 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020) .............. 50, 51
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. M & K Holdings Inc.,
`No. IPR2018-00696, 2018 WL 4232460 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018) ................... 51
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`No. IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) .................................... 88
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 86
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`909 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 50
`Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 32
`Docketed Cases
`TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. & Medtronic USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00973-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3
`Statutes & Regulations
`35 U.S.C.
`§102(a) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(b) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(e) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(g) ................................................................................................................ 88
`§103 ....................................................................................................................... 6
`§312(a)(2) ............................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. §90.3 ........................................................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`This is one (Petition A) of two concurrently filed petitions for inter partes
`
`review challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 (“Challenged Claims”) of United
`
`States Patent No. 7,101,393 (“the ’393 patent,” Ex.1001). This petition challenges
`
`those claims under the proper construction of “telescoping arm” and “telescoping
`
`arms”—the construction that the Patent Office (“PTO”) applied during prosecution
`
`of the ’393 patent and has applied repeatedly during examination and an appeal of a
`
`subsequent family member of the ’393 patent.1
`
`The ’393 patent, titled “Percutaneous Endovascular Apparatus for Repair of
`
`Aneurysms and Arterial Blockages,” issued from a patent application filed on July
`
`22, 2003, over a decade after percutaneously-delivered endovascular stent grafts for
`
`the repair of aneurysms were first used in the United States and after the field of art
`
`was already crowded. The ’393 patent claims an attachment device for securing an
`
`endovascular apparatus to an interior wall of a blood vessel that comprises “a
`
`plurality of telescoping arms” configured in the shape of an “M.” The apparatus is
`
`
`1 The concurrently filed petition (Petition B) challenges the same claims under the
`
`litigation-inspired construction that PO is pursuing in a parallel district court action.
`
`(E.g., Ex.1041; Ex.1053; Ex.1054).
`
`
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`meant to treat different conditions, particularly abdominal aortic aneurysms
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(“AAA”).
`
`The ’393 patent issued without some of the most relevant prior art—including
`
`all of the prior art relied upon in this petition—being known to the examiners.
`
`However, when examining claims in continuation applications to the ’393 patent
`
`concerning “telescoping arms,” the examiners as well as the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“Board”) recognized that it would have been obvious to combine a traditional
`
`radially expanding percutaneous M-shaped stent with known telescoping arm
`
`functionality. For example, the examiners and the Board considered the disclosures
`
`of stents in the shape of an M for treating AAA in Exhibit 1004 (“Quiachon”), and
`
`the telescoping functionality for treating AAA disclosed in Exhibit 1006
`
`(“Lazarus”), and rejected the claims in view of this art. This combination, as well
`
`as the combination of Exhibit 1005 (“Hartley”) and Lazarus, renders the challenged
`
`’393 patent claims invalid. The examiners’ and the Board’s prior conclusions in the
`
`continuing applications were correct and apply with equal force to the claims of the
`
`’393 patent.
`
`The Board should institute this petition and undertake an inter partes review
`
`of the Challenged Claims. Consistent with the examiners’ and Board’s prior
`
`
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`findings, under a proper construction of “telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms,” the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims are obvious as detailed below.2
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2), Petitioner identifies the following parties:
`
`Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (Petitioner), Medtronic Vascular Galway Unlimited
`
`Company, Medtronic Logistics LLC, Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic USA, Inc.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc. are the named defendants in the
`
`parallel district court litigation identified below. While Medtronic, Inc. has no
`
`involvement in any alleged acts of infringement, Patent Owner (“PO”) named it as
`
`a defendant and it is being identified as a real party in interest for that reason.
`
`B. Related Matter
`
`The ’393 patent has been asserted in TMT Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. and
`
`Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00973-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`
`2 As detailed in the concurrently filed petition, under PO’s incorrect construction of
`
`“telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms”—which reads out any requirement of a
`
`“telescoping arm”—the Challenged Claims are anticipated by Quiachon, Hartley, or
`
`a third prior art reference (“Stelter”).
`
`
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C. Counsel
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`
`First Back-up Counsel: Alexis Cohen (Reg. No. 76,998)
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`Jennifer Graber (Reg. No. 80,059)
`
`Gilbert Smolenski (Reg. No. 78,549)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Email:
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Alexis.Cohen@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Jennifer.Graber@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Gilbert.Smolenski@wilmerhale.com.
`
`Post & Hand Delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Tel: (202) 663-6000, Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`Petitioner agrees to accept service by email.
`
`III. Certification of Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’393 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review on the
`
`
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’393 patent and requests
`
`each Challenged Claim be cancelled.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,824,044 to Quiachon (“Quiachon,” Ex.1004), issued on
`
`October 20, 1998, and filed on September 3, 1996, is prior art to the ’393
`
`patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e).3 Quiachon was
`
`not before the PTO during prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`2. WO 99/29262 to Hartley (“Hartley,” Ex.1005), published on June 17, 1999,
`
`and filed on December 9, 1998, is prior art to the ’393 patent under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Hartley was not before the PTO
`
`during prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`
`3 The ’393 patent was examined under pre-AIA rules. (E.g., Ex.1002). Although
`
`this petition applies pre-AIA rules, the relied-upon references also qualify as prior
`
`art post-AIA.
`
`
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,165,214 to Lazarus (“Lazarus,” Ex.1006), issued on
`
`December 26, 2000, and filed on June 2, 1995, is prior art to the ’393 patent
`
`under pre-AIA-U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Lazarus was not before
`
`the PTO during prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,225 to Lau (“Lau,” Ex.1007), issued on July 6, 1999,
`
`and filed on July 14, 1997, is prior art to the ’393 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Lau was not before the PTO during
`
`prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`B. Grounds of Challenge
`
`Under Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner
`
`requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 of the ’393 patent as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Claims
`
`References
`
`I
`II
`
`III
`
`103
`103
`
`1, 2, 4, 11, 26
`10
`
`103
`
`1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 26
`
`Quiachon in view of Lazarus
`Quiachon in view of Lazarus in
`further view of Lau
`Hartley in view of Lazarus
`
`C. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board cancel the Challenged Claims because they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`V. Overview of the State of the Art and the ’393 Patent
`A. The State of the Art
`1.
`
`Traditional Treatment of Aneurysms
`
`An “aneurysm” occurs when there is a weakening in the walls of the blood
`
`vessels that carry blood from a person’s heart to their organs. (Declaration of Dr.
`
`Eliot Chaikof, Ex.1003, ¶¶29-30). This causes an abnormally large bulge in the
`
`blood vessel wall, shown below. (Id., ¶30). This bulge can rupture and cause
`
`internal bleeding, and sometimes lead to death. (Id.). Aneurysms are especially
`
`common in a patient’s abdominal aorta—the main blood vessel carrying blood to a
`
`patient’s legs. (Id., ¶¶29-30). An aneurysm in the abdominal aorta is called an
`
`abdominal aortic aneurysm (“AAA”). (Id., ¶30).
`
`Beginning in the 1970s, minimally invasive (also called “percutaneous”)
`
`techniques to repair aneurysms emerged as an alternative to open surgery, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`first percutaneous repair of AAA was reported in 1991. (Id., ¶¶31-34). To repair an
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`aneurysm percutaneously, “endovascular stent grafts” were used. (Id., ¶32). Such
`
`devices include a metal ring or scaffold (i.e., the “stent”) that holds the graft open
`
`by pressing against the wall of the blood vessel. (Id.). An example of a prior art
`
`endovascular stent graft is shown below:
`
`
`
`(Ex.1037, S148; Ex.1003, ¶38).
`
`An endovascular stent graft can be compressed to a small profile such that it
`
`may be inserted through a patient’s blood vessels (e.g., the femoral artery) and
`
`directed to the aneurysm site. (Ex.1003, ¶32). During endovascular surgery, the
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`compressed stent graft is held inside a hollow tube. (Id.). Once at the site of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`aneurysm, the tube is removed, and the stent expands into place, either on its own or
`
`with the use of a balloon. (Id.). The stent secures the graft against the blood vessel
`
`walls, which allows blood to flow through the stent graft device and bypass the
`
`aneurysm. (Id.). This process is shown below:
`
`
`
`(Id.).
`
`
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`Endovascular Stent Grafts Were Well Described in the
`Prior Art and Used in Practice in the 1990s
`
`Throughout the 1990s, endovascular surgery for AAA spread globally, and
`
`devices were developed to treat more complex aneurysms. (Ex.1003, ¶¶35-43, 52).
`
`Medtronic entities were at the forefront of this innovation, developing and testing
`
`two endovascular stent grafts before the year 2000: AneuRx and Talent. (Id., ¶¶37-
`
`38).
`
`Attachment devices with arms in the shape of an M that radially expand
`
`(which PO contends are “telescoping arms” under its proposed claim construction),
`
`were well-known before the ’393 patent was filed. An operational endovascular
`
`stent graft must both successfully compress into a small enough profile for insertion
`
`through a patient’s blood vessel and be able to expand securely into place at the
`
`aneurysm site. (Id., ¶39). Designers developed a number of different zig-zagging
`
`sinusoidal stents in which the arms form an “M” shape. (Id., ¶¶39-43). These
`
`different shapes, shown below, were known to meet both compressibility and
`
`expandability requirements. (Id.).
`
`
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Hartley
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,086,611
`(“Duffy,” Ex.1032)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Quiachon
`
`
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Stelter
`
`Lau
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,423,090 to Hancock (“Hancock,” Ex.1035)
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Telescoping Arms
`
`Additionally, prior to the ’393 patent application, persons of skill in the art
`
`had also already begun to use arms that could telescope in connection with stent
`
`grafts. (Ex.1003, ¶¶44-49). These telescoping arms, shown below, were known to
`
`provide compressibility and expandability. (Id.).
`
`
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Lazarus
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,951 (“Mueller,” Ex.1009)
`
`
`
`
`(See also U.S. Patent No. 6,309,343 (“Lentz,” Ex.1039), 5:36-45; U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,083,258 (“Yadav,” Ex.1038), 3:43-53, Figs.1-3).
`
`B.
`
`The ’393 Patent
`
`The ’393 patent describes an “attachment device,” e.g., a stent, “having an
`
`expandable attachment device for securing the endovascular apparatus to an interior
`
`wall of a lumen [i.e., blood vessel].” (Ex.1001, 1:9-11). The patent describes that
`
`“[t]he expandable attachment device may include a plurality of telescoping arms that
`
`are joined together to form an expandable ring.” (Id., 1:66-2:1). “Once positioned
`
`at the site of an aneurysm or arterial blockage, the telescoping attachment device can
`
`
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`be expanded to hold the endovascular apparatus in place adjacent to the inner lumen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`wall.” (Id., 2:11-14). The ’393 patent states that “[e]ach telescoping arm is similar
`
`to an expandable presentation pointer. Alternatively, each telescoping arm may
`
`function like an accordion.” (Id., 2:38-40).
`
`All of the figures in the ’393 patent depict “presentation pointer”
`
`embodiments of the telescoping arm. The vast majority of depictions of this
`
`expandable ring feature a plurality of telescoping arms that are joined together in a
`
`single plane. In these embodiments, the “telescoping arms” form a flat ring.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`Unlike Figures 4, 8, and 12 above, Figure 13 depicts a plurality of
`
`presentation-pointer telescoping arms that are “positioned in multiple planes.” In
`
`Figure 13, each set of four adjacent telescoping arms form the shape of an “M,” as
`
`depicted below.
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`The arms are operatively connected such that when one arm moves (e.g., arm 1),
`
`another arm (e.g., arm 2) moves. In other words, each arm is functionally connected
`
`to the adjacent arms. Notably, Figure 13 is never described as depicting a
`
`telescoping arm that functions “like an accordion.” (Ex.1003, ¶¶57-72).
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Prosecution
`
`The ’393 patent was filed as a patent application on July 22, 2003 as
`
`Application No. 10/624,864. (See Ex.1001). The ’393 patent claims priority to
`
`provisional application No. 60/397,745 filed on July 22, 2002. (Ex.1001, Feb. 28,
`
`2017 Certificate of Correction; Ex.1002, 39; Ex.1047; Ex.1003, ¶¶73-74).
`
`The examiner required the applicant to elect a single distinct species for
`
`prosecution on the merits, and the applicant elected the species represented by Figure
`
`
`
`– 17 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`13. (Ex.1002, 112-116, 126). The applicant noted that “the configuration of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`telescoping arms, e.g., the ‘M configuration’ shown in Figure 13, serves to provide
`
`additional support and force against a lumen; thus, this configuration provides a
`
`fixation capability to the attachment device. The fixation component is in this
`
`combination of telescoping arms.” (Ex.1002, 126).
`
`The ’393 patent issued on September 5, 2006. (Ex.1001; Ex.1003, ¶¶75-83).
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Continuation-in-Part Prosecution
`
`Prior to issuance of the ’393 patent, the applicant filed continuation-in-part
`
`U.S. Patent Application 11/484,331 (“’331 application”) that claimed priority to the
`
`’393 patent and sought claims which included the limitations of the Challenged
`
`Claims. The file history of the ’331 application includes relevant statements by the
`
`applicant and examiners about the scope of the Challenged Claim terms and some
`
`of the prior art in this petition (e.g., Ex.1004, Ex.1006). Moreover, a final rejection
`
`of the ’331 application was appealed to this Board, which sustained the examiner’s
`
`rejection. The applicant did not appeal the Board’s decision, and did not pursue the
`
`rejected claims after the examiner subsequently rejected the claims under the
`
`principles of res judicata. The same prior art and analysis in the ’331 application
`
`apply here.
`
`Specifically, the ’331 application included the following claims:
`
`Claim 25. An endovascular apparatus comprising:
`
`
`
`– 18 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`…
`a plurality of M configuration springs attached to the cranial end
`portion of the tubular sleeve extending circumferentially around an
`exterior perimeter of the tubular sleeve to hold the sleeve open and
`secure the sleeve to a wall of a vessel.
`
`Claim 30. An endovascular apparatus comprising:
`…
`an M stent coupled to the cranial end portion of the tubular sleeve
`extending circumferentially around the tubular sleeve to hold the sleeve
`open and secure the sleeve to a wall of a vessel.
`
`Claim 39. The endovascular apparatus of Claim 30, wherein the
`plurality of M configuration springs comprises a plurality of
`telescoping arms that can move from a non telescoped collapsed state
`in which portions of the arms are positioned within a telescoping
`portion and a plurality of expanded states in which the arms are
`extended out from the telescoping portion.
`
`
`(Ex.1048, 189-191).4
`
`
`4 Claim 39 is written as depending from claim 30. However, claim 25 recites “M
`
`configuration springs,” while claim 30 recites “an M stent.” In any case, the
`
`dependency of the claim does not change the analysis above.
`
`
`
`– 19 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`On February 8, 2012, the examiner rejected the above claims. (Id., 217-221).
`
`The examiner concluded that independent claim 30 is anticipated by Quiachon (i.e.,
`
`Ex.1004). The examiner recognized that Quiachon discloses the M configuration
`
`required by claim 30. (Id., 217). In particular, the examiner cited Figure 17 of
`
`Quiachon, in which “the stent sections from B1 to B3 and B3 to B5” form an “M
`
`shape,” as reflected in the following annotated version of this figure:
`
`
`
`(Ex.1004, Fig.17).
`
`As to dependent claim 39, the examiner concluded the claim was obvious over
`
`Quiachon in view of Lazarus. (Id., 218-219). The examiner explained that “it would
`
`have been obvious
`
`to make
`
`the struts [comprising
`
`the M shape] of
`
`Quiachon…telescoping[,] as taught by Lazarus.” (Id.). Lazarus’s teaching of
`
`telescoping arms is depicted in Figure 7:
`
`
`
`– 20 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex.1006, Fig.7).
`
`
`
`According to the examiner, a POSA would have been motivated to apply this
`
`teaching from Lazarus to the M stent of Quiachon, “to adjust the length of the stent
`
`to better fit the patient.” (Ex.1048, 218-219). The examiner added that modifying
`
`the struts of Quiachon such that they telescope, as in Lazarus, would have been “a
`
`mere combination of known elements to yield a predictable result.” (Id.).
`
`On December 10, 2012, the applicant appealed the examiner’s rejection of
`
`claims 30 and 39, among other claims. (Id., 234). In connection with claim 30, the
`
`applicant did not contest that Quiachon discloses the required M stent, and instead,
`
`only challenged the disclosure of other claim elements. (Id., 251-253). As to claim
`
`39, the applicant contested neither (a) that Lazarus discloses the required plurality
`
`of telescoping arms, nor (b) that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the
`
`
`
`– 21 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`teachings of Quiachon and Lazarus, such that the struts disclosed in Quiachon would
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`telescope. (Id., 254). The applicant instead only argued that Quiachon fails to
`
`disclose a separate element (not recited in the challenged ’393 patent claims)
`
`required by claim 30, from which claim 39 depended. (Id.).
`
`On December 1, 2016, the Board rejected the applicant’s challenges
`
`concerning claims 30 and 39, concluding that Quiachon discloses the elements on
`
`which the applicant’s appellate challenges focused. (Id., 324-339). Given that the
`
`applicant did not even contest either that Quiachon disclosed the M stent of claim
`
`30, or that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Quiachon and
`
`Lazarus, the Board did not disturb the examiner’s findings on those points. (Id.,
`
`334-335, 338). The applicant did not appeal the Board’s decision.
`
`On January 12, 2017, the examiner again rejected claim 39 as obvious over
`
`Quiachon and Lazarus under the principles of res judicata. (Id., 359). On May 5,
`
`2017, the applicant canceled claims 30 and 39, and did not attempt to present the
`
`claims again. (Id., 381-382; Ex.1003, ¶¶84-98).
`
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would be a medical practitioner, with experience using endovascular stent
`
`grafts and with training, experience, or familiarity applying principles of engineering
`
`to the design, development, or testing of endovascular devices; and/or an engineer,
`
`
`
`– 22 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`having at least a bachelor of science degree and with several years of experience in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`the design, development, or testing of endovascular devices and their clinical use; a
`
`higher level of education could reduce the number of years of experience required.
`
`(Ex.1003, ¶¶26-28). A POSA would be familiar with the design and operation of
`
`endovascular stent grafts and the equipment and tools required to treat a patient using
`
`an endovascular stent graft. (Id.).
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`The parties involved in parallel district court litigation have briefed their
`
`differing claim construction positions. The court has not yet construed the claims.5
`
`Petitioner reserves all rights with respect to claim construction. Petitioner proposes
`
`the following constructions, but notes that with the exception of “telescoping arm”
`
`and “telescoping arms,” this petition demonstrates that the prior art teaches each and
`
`every limitation under either Petitioner’s proposed claim construction or PO’s
`
`proposed claim construction advanced in the parallel district court litigation.
`
`
`5 As of the date of this petition, no Markman hearing is scheduled, pending resolution
`
`of venue-related issues. If the court construes the claim language, Petitioner will
`
`inform the Board promptly.
`
`
`
`– 23 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`“telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms” (claims 1, 2, 26)
`
`The terms “telescoping arm” and “telescoping arms” should be construed in
`
`accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`A “telescoping arm” means “an arm that telescopes.” “Telescoping arms” means
`
`“more than one telescoping arm.”
`
`“Telescoping” has a plain meaning and there was no specialized meaning of
`
`“telescoping” in the art when the patent was filed. (Ex.1003, ¶114). The primary
`
`dispute between the parties in parallel district court litigation is whether (as
`
`Petitioner contends) each arm must telescope or (as PO contends) individual arms
`
`need not telescope.
`
`The intrinsic record is clear that each arm must telescope. For example, the
`
`specification explains that “[e]ach telescoping arm is similar to an expandable
`
`presentation pointer. Alternatively, each telescoping arm may function like an
`
`accordion.” (Ex.1001, 2:38-40; see also id., 5:16-21 (telescoping arms are
`
`constructed from “nested tubes,” that are “sized so as to fit within one another”)).
`
`Moreover, every one of the ’393 patent’s figures depict that each arm
`
`telescopes. For example, Figure 4C shows six telescoping arms (40) each connected
`
`using a “fixatio