Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: February 21, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`MEDIVIS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARAD CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 30, 2024
`________________
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`KIA L. FREEMAN, ESQ.
`ERIK P. BELT, ESQ.
`McCarter & English, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`kfreeman@mccarter.com
`ebelt@mccarter.com
`(617) 449-6549 (Freeman)
`(617) 449-6506 (Belt)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSEPH HARMER, ESQ.
`Thorpe North & Western LLP
`8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`Joseph.harmer@tnw.com
`(801) 566-6633
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, January
`
`30, 2024, commencing at 1:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Welcome, everyone. My name is Judge
`Raevsky and welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. I'm joined
`today by Judges Quinn and Zecher. We're here today for oral arguments in
`inter partes review numbers 2023-00042 and 00045, in which Medivis, Inc.
`is the Petitioner, and Novarad Corp. is the Patent Owner. At issue in the 042
`case is U.S. Patent Number 11,004,271. At issue in the 045 case is U.S.
`Patent Number 10,945,807. Petitioner, would you please enter your
`appearances?
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes, this is Kia Freeman representing
`Medivis. With me today is Erik Belt and --
` MR. BELT: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` MS. FREEMAN: -- our colleague, Leah McCoy. Also
`listening on the public line are the founders of Medivis, Chris Morley, and
`Osamah Choudhry, and Saba Nagy.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: And, Kia, you'll be presenting today?
` MS. FREEMAN: I'll be presenting for IPR2023-00042, and
`Mr. Belt will be presenting for IPR2023-00045.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you. And who do we have for
`Patent Owner today?
` MR. HARMER: Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Harmer,
`representing Patent Owner Novarad. I have Mr. Jed Hansen in the room
`with me, though he won't appear on screen. And I will be representing, or
`presenting, pardon me, in both IPRs.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you, counsel. Before we begin, I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`have a number of housekeeping items. First of all, when you're referring to
`a slide today, please tell us the slide number so that we can follow along.
`Secondly, please remember to mute yourself when you're not speaking and
`then identify yourself at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of
`the court reporter. And please also be aware that members of the public may
`be listening to this hearing.
`
`I'd like to also note that we've received objections from Patent
`Owner to a number of Petitioner’s slides in the 045 case. In particular,
`Patent Owner objects to slides 60 and 62 through 76 of Petitioner's 045
`demonstratives because they raised new theories of obviousness. We agree
`with Patent Owner. The 045 Petition discusses Ground 2, obviousness over
`Jones without citing prior art other than referring to a scope and content of
`the prior art section earlier in the Petition. In contrast, nearly all of the
`aforementioned slides refer to Jones plus knowledge in the art and supply
`detailed citations that are not present in the obviousness over Jones section
`of the Petition. Accordingly, we sustain Patent Owner's objections, and
`Petitioner must not refer to those slides or raise similar arguments orally. In
`addition, should either party wish to make further objections during the
`hearing, that party must raise those objections during its own presentation
`time and must not object during opposing counsel's presentation.
` As far as the mechanics of the hearing, argument will proceed
`for each case separately. Each side will have 45 minutes to argue the 042
`case. We will then take a 10-minute break, and then each side will have an
`additional 45 minutes to argue the 045 case. And for convenience, we'd like
`to have a single transcript covering both cases. Does either party object to
`having a single transcript?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
` MR. BELT: No, Your Honor. Petitioner does not object. And
`may I ask a question, Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: You may.
` MR. BELT: So, I would like to lodge a, you know, for the
`record an objection or, you know, reserve my right with respect to your
`ruling on those slides. May I argue that point when it comes to the
`argument on the '807 Patent?
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: You may argue that point, but you may
`not refer to those slides substantively.
` MR. BELT: Okay.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you. For each case, we will first
`hear from Petitioner, and then we'll hear from Patent Owner, followed by
`any rebuttal by Petitioner and then any sur-rebuttal by Patent Owner. For
`the first part of our hearing addressing the 042 case, Petitioner, would you
`like to reserve any time for rebuttal today?
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 15
`minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. So that will leave you with 30
`minutes for your primary argument. When you're ready, you may begin.
` MS. FREEMAN: Thank you, Your Honors. I'm going to start
`by going over the trial record in this IPR. Under Rule 42.64(c), a motion to
`exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection. Novarad waived
`all of its objections to Medivis's exhibits by not moving to exclude any of
`Medivis's evidence. On the other hand, Medivis's motion to exclude
`Novarad's Exhibits 2002 and 2004, which are the declarations of Mulumudi
`and Rosenberg, remains pending.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
` As you know, there are three challenges. The first one is
`anticipation of certain claims by Doo. The Board provided its preliminary
`findings in its institution decision here. And we would rest on our papers as
`to anticipation by Doo and focus on obviousness for the purposes of oral
`argument. The second Ground is obviousness over Doo in view of Amira.
`And the third Ground is obviousness over Chen 3D slicer visualization and
`3D slicer-GUI. Just for reference 3D slicer visualization is Exhibit 1007. It
`might also be called 3D slicer, sorry, 3D slicer or 3D slicer-visualization, I'm
`sorry. I already got this wrong. 3D slicer visualization, or 3D visualization.
`Also, 3D slicer, the reference Exhibit 1010 might be called 3D slicer GUI,
`alternatively.
` Now turning to obviousness, Graham v. Deere laid out the
`factual inquiries that are the framework for assessing obviousness. The last
`one is objective evidence of non-obviousness. There is none at issue here,
`so we'll turn to the next. The third factual inquiry is the level of skill in the
`art and we'd like to look at that. Turning to, let's see. Turning to slide 5. In
`the Petition Medivis proposed a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art and proposed that that person would have three qualifications. The first
`qualification is a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical
`engineering, or a related field. The second qualification is several years of
`experience in the design, development, and study of AR devices. And the
`third qualification is either familiarity with conventional medical imaging
`data and visualization of data for medical procedures, or working with a
`team, including someone with such familiarity. In the scheduling order, the
`Board cautioned Novarad about waiver if Novarad failed to present any
`challenges in the Patent Owner reply. And the reason for that is because the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`Petitioner is limited as to what it can argue after the Petition is filed. And,
`for example, the reply can only respond to what is in the Patent Owner
`response. So by not ever challenging Medivis's definition of a person of
`ordinary skill, Novarad waived the right to dispute Medivis's definition of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. And in fact, they never presented their
`own proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Moving to
`the next.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Ms. Freeman, this is Judge Zecher. I do
`
`have a question. Can you go back to that slide? In your third element, it's
`an either or. It says familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and
`visualization of data for medical procedures or working with a team
`including someone with such familiarity. What does the second aspect of
`that mean? Does that just mean that somebody can work with somebody
`who's more experienced in medical imaging data and visualization of data
`for medical procedures but doesn't actually have to do it him or herself?
` MS. FREEMAN: Well, I think this addresses the situation
`where you have a team that has a variety of skills and experience and
`knowledge that they're bringing to the table. If you work with someone that
`includes this familiarity with medical imaging data and with the
`visualization of data for medical procedures, then you could leverage that
`knowledge, skill, and experience if you are working with them.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, in other words, the person doesn't
`actually have to work on that him or herself, as long as he or she works with
`somebody who's done that work on those particular things, the medical
`imaging data and visualization of data, medical procedures, that's sufficient,
`correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
` MS. FREEMAN: Well, it's not -- it is working with someone
`using the familiarity. It's not like I could work with someone who might
`have that familiarity and it might be something I wouldn't know. But if they
`were working together on a project and leveraging their various skills and
`experience, then yes, that would qualify, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Well, I'm just curious, how does that
`qualify them as a person of ordinary skill in the art? If they don't actually
`work on it themselves, then how would they -- I'm a little confused. I mean
`I can just work with somebody who has the knowledge and that makes me
`qualified?
` MS. FREEMAN: It's like working on a team. Not everyone
`brings the same things to the team. But this person could also have
`experience with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of that
`data themselves. As Novarad itself said, it's likely a multidisciplinary team.
`It's not like two individuals working separately are equivalent to a team
`working together on an AR project. A team is greater than the sum of its
`parts.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Well that adds more confusion for
`
`me because we're talking about a person of ordinary skill in the art, not a
`team of people of ordinary skill in the art. But in any event, let's move past
`this. You can go on and continue with your presentation.
` MS. FREEMAN: Okay. So, Medivis presented the declaration
`of Professor Kazanzides. He has the credentials to opine on the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art and Novarad never
`disputed that he qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. For
`example, he is a research professor in the Department of Computer Science
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`and he researches AR systems for surgical applications, and he's a co-
`inventor on a patent application entitled Augmented Reality for Surgical
`Procedures. That was slide 6.
` Moving on to slide 7. This is just an example. Azimi Exhibit
`1011 as an example of a paper co-authored by Kazanzides. It's entitled
`Augmented Reality Goggles with an Integrated Tracking System for
`Navigation in Neurosurgery, and that's dated 2012. Moving on to slide 8.
`Novarad did not qualify Mulumudi as a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`and he lacks both the academic qualifications, the AR device experience
`required by the undisputed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Also in the Petition, as an example of what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have been familiar with, it says a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been familiar with the 3D-slicer application and its ability to
`load and display data for a user. But Mulumudi was not familiar with 3D
`Slicer, as we noted in the motion to exclude. And as another example, he
`did not recognize one of the exhibits that we rely on as a basis for our
`challenge, that's 3D Slicer visualization, Exhibit 1007.
` Moving on to slide 9. Novarad did not qualify Rosenberg as a
`person of ordinary skill in the art either. He admitted that he is not an expert
`in the specifics of medical imaging, and he did not claim the required
`qualification as to conventional medical imaging data and visualization of
`data for medical procedures. Nor did he claim the required experience with
`AR devices. I will say that this brings into bear, like, how your concern
`about our definition of a person of an ordinary skill in the art might work.
`Rosenberg, if he didn't have either personal familiarity with conventional
`medical imaging data or visualization of that data, then he's really -- has a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`bad starting point if he's not working with someone, he can use to leverage
`their knowledge, skills, and understanding of that data. So that's an example
`how you might have -- if he doesn't have personal knowledge, which he says
`he doesn't, then he could have leveraged someone else's knowledge to help
`him come up to speed on how to use that data and what the existing
`technology in that area was.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, I'll just jump in and note that we
`appreciate your presentation on this issue. I think we understand your
`position on this issue and might be interested in hearing your positions on
`claim construction and the merits.
` MS. FREEMAN: Okay. Okay. Moving on to the claims. This
`is Claim 1. It's a method for augmenting real-time non-image actual views
`of a patient with three-dimensional data. The method comprising two steps
`with one additional limitation. The first step, this is slide 17, is identifying
`3D data for the patient, the 3D data including an outer layer of the patient
`and multiple inner layers of the patient. And the second step constituting
`displaying an augmented reality headset. One of the inner layers of the
`patient from the 3D data projected onto real-time non-image actual views of
`the outer layer of the patient. The third limitation is the projected inner layer
`of the patient from the 3D data being confined within a volume of a virtual
`3D shape. Moving on to Claim 11, there's a lot of overlap.
`The preamble and the first and second step from Claim 1 are also
`in Claim 11. The third limitation of Claim 1 does not appear in Claim 11 but
`Claim 11 also introduces the fact that the 3D data from the patient in that
`data, the multiple inner layers of the patient have an original color gradient.
`Claim 11 also introduces another step, which is altering the color gradient of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`the multiple inner layers to be lighter than the original color gradient in order
`to be better visible when projected onto real-time non-image actual views of
`the outer layer of the patient. And then also as a limitation on the displaying
`step, it adds the projected interlayer of the patient from the 3D data being
`having the altered color gradient.
` So originally, Novarad took the position, this is slide 19, that no
`claim construction is necessary. And you can read Exhibit 1014, which is a
`Novarad email we cite in the Petition in which Novarad says all of the
`claims should have their plain and ordinary meaning as they would be
`understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, no claim
`construction is necessary. But after institution, Novarad proposed
`unordinary meanings that contradict the '271 patent claims and the
`specification. Moving on to slide 20. So these are some issues that have
`been raised over the course of the trial, which is, must 3D data both exclude
`X-ray imaging and, more importantly, be limited to data that has been direct
`volume rendered? And if so, what does that mean? Secondly, must the
`inner layer of the patient be limited to 3D and DVR. And if so, what does
`that mean in terms of those limitations? Then, Novarad has really raised a
`lot of questions with regard to the meaning of Claim 1's limitation of
`combined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape. And all of this raises the
`questions as to whether 3D has the same meaning in Claim 1's 3D data and
`also in Claim 1's virtual 3D shape. And as a subsidiary matter, what does
`3D mean in that context?
` Secondly, as to Claim 11, they have raised the question as to
`whether the word being is meaningless in Claim 11, but not in Claim 1. And
`they have not moved to amend Claim 11 to eliminate that word being or --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`and they have not sought a correction of the inclusion of that word which
`they have admitted is its own error.
` So going into background to help us understand what the
`meaning of the words is and the context of the slides we refer to slide 22,
`which is an overview of the '271 Patent and Figure 1. Figure 1 shows
`patient 106 here. User 104 in this case looks like a surgeon. There's an AR
`headset 108, which might be Microsoft HoloLens, and the surgeon is
`wearing that headset, surgeon/user. There are virtual lines displayed, virtual
`elements shown in dashed lines on Figure 1. The Patent discloses these are
`generated by the AR headset and only viewable by the user through the AR
`headset 108. Among the virtual display that is visible only to the user, there
`is a virtual user interface 114 which is an upper portion of Figure 1. And
`there is an also a virtual spatial difference box 116 which is overlaid on the
`patient. Within the box 116 there are bones 106B. This is all described
`within the Patent. This is a larger view, slide 23. Moving on to slide 24.
`The '271 Patent explains what the virtual user interface 114 is all about. It
`says virtual user interface 114 may cause that AR headset to three, adjust the
`characteristics of the 3D data that is projected, including the brightness and
`color of the projected 3D data. Four, adjust the alignment of the 3D data
`with the patient. Five, display the virtual difference box. Six, display a
`slice instead of a volume of the 3D data. Seven, drag 3D data in the
`direction of the user, such as in repositioning of a slice of the data. That
`sounds like maybe it has to do with getting a better registration. And finally,
`eight, displaying different slices of the 3D data. Moving on to slide --
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I have a question about your construction
`related to confined within a virtual 3D shape. Maybe you could go there in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`your slides and get us going on that claim construction. And then I'll jump
`in with a question if that's okay with you.
` MS. FREEMAN: Sure. I'll jump ahead to that. Okay. Part of
`their construction of, yeah, okay, so moving to slide 40, this is claim
`construction of confined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape. So Medivis
`proposed that virtual 3D shape encompasses a form as simple as a box and
`as complex as the outer layer of the patient. Thereafter, Novarad, having
`previously said no construction is required, decided that the confined within
`a virtual 3D shape somehow required navigation along any axis in a virtual
`control. I'm not sure how they relate the actual words in the claims to
`their -- what they proposed to read into the claims. Nonetheless, in our
`reply, we were clear that confined within a volume has its plain and ordinary
`meaning, which does not involve any navigation function, but rather requires
`the virtual 3D shape to be a boundary. Moving on to slide 41.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. So that -- now I'd like to jump in
`since you've kind of primed the question. So could you please go back to
`the previous slide?
` MS. FREEMAN: Sure. Going to slide 40.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. So you mentioned that the virtual
`3D shape could be as simple as a box, as complex as the outer layer of a
`patient. In the reply, you also cite deposition testimony from Patent Owner's
`declarant, related to the meaning of shape as being a form, et cetera. And
`you also define, I believe, confines to be kept. And so my question is, can
`we simply, would it be a correct construction to simply construe -- confined
`within a virtual 3D shape to be kept within the virtual 3D shape or kept
`within the virtual 3D form or volume. Do we need to say that it requires a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`virtual 3D shape to be a boundary?
` MS. FREEMAN: I don't think so because if you interpret
`confined as kept within a volume of a virtual 3D shape, I think in this
`context, kept, and confined are pretty much synonyms. And keeping
`something within a volume of a virtual 3D shape would cause the volume of
`the 3D shape to be a boundary for whatever was kept within.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
` MS. FREEMAN: So, Claim 3 has a virtual 3D shape
`configured to be controlled to toggle between displaying and hiding lines of
`the virtual 3D shape. This is a dependent claim, of course. I'm on slide 41.
`It also says the virtual 3D shape is configured to be controlled to reposition
`two-dimensional slices and/or 3D slices of the projected inner layer of the
`patient from the 3D data. That's for background. We're moving back into
`construction. So as the Judge just mentioned, confined and shape both
`appear as words within a larger phrase, and Novarad's proffered expert
`Mulumudi opined that each of those terms are not technical. And in their
`sur-reply, Novarad argues that the virtual 3D shape is a box. And I'm citing
`their sur-reply at 7 where they say a virtual 3D shape, i.e., a virtual spatial
`difference box 116. That is slide 42.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Related to that slide that you were just
`on, Patent Owner charges you with lack of candor for asking Dr. Mulumudi
`about the meaning of these terms. Do you have a response to that charge?
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes, I do. I think it's a ridiculous charge.
`Dr. Mulumudi opines as to the meaning of those words, and it should have
`been completely expected that he'd be asked about the meaning of those
`words in his deposition. I'm not actually quite sure that I understand the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`allegation of the lack of candor. I don't really get it. We were asking
`questions in a deposition. I don't understand where the lack of candor is
`there. I mean, an attorney deposing a witness is asking questions. What is
`there to -- what is the candor that applies in the context of asking questions?
`If there's any lack of clarity, the witness could always ask for a clarification,
`which the witness generally did not. Does that answer your question, Your
`Honor?
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
`
` MS. FREEMAN: Moving on to slide 43. Novarad, their
`arguments aren't very clear and they're not put together well in a clear
`summary. So, I'm trying to kludge together various arguments that they've
`made in their efforts to distinguish the prior art reference and put those into
`the claim construction section where they properly belong. So, in the sur-
`reply at 12, Novarad argues that confined within a volume means navigable
`along any access. There is no support for that in the '271 Patent. The '271
`Patent only does use the word navigate. So clearly, the applicant knew how
`to use the word navigate, and chose not to use that word in the claims. They
`did include the word once into the specification, and it appears in the
`sentence which I have copied on slide 43. It says that the virtual spatial
`difference box 116 may assist the user when navigating the projected 3D
`data by providing a frame of reference for the user. So the function of box
`116 is to provide a frame of reference for the user. That is what it's doing.
`The box is providing a frame of reference. And that actually can be helpful,
`such as when you're registering or trying to maybe move the slides or select
`a different slide that you could display on the user.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, I'll just jump in and note that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`you have just under five minutes of your planned argument time remaining.
`Of course, you're free to go into your planned rebuttal as needed.
` MS. FREEMAN: Okay. Is there anything in particular that
`you would like to hear about, Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I do have one very simple procedural
`question. And I apologize, it's not related to this claim construction
`argument you're on. But it's very simple. On page 34 of the Petition, in the
`Doo ground, in the heading for the displaying limitation, you mentioned
`Claims 1, 7 and 11. And I believe that you didn't intend to challenge Claim
`7 because that's the only reference to Claim 7 that I could see in the Petition.
`And I was just wondering if you could confirm that for me.
` MS. FREEMAN: I do confirm that. The challenges are put
`forward, the particular challenge -- sorry, I'm just looking for the right page.
`The particular -- wait, 31. Page 31 includes the particular challenges. This
`is page 31 of the Petition. It includes the particular claims that are
`challenged as well as the particular challenges for each of those challenged
`claims.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. So it's Claim 7, you were
`
`affirmatively not challenging.
` MS. FREEMAN: That is -- was a typo. That is not an intended
`part of our challenge.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you. You may proceed as you
`
`wish.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yeah. Ms. Freeman, this is Judge Zecher.
`
`I would like you to just take a step back because I imagine Patent Owner is
`going to get to this in their presentation. If we're talking about the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`construction of 3D data, --
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: -- I believe it's your slide 30.
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: And I think there's a lot of argument as to
`whether or not direct volume rendering should be read into this construction.
`I guess my -- my first kind of general question is if there -- is there more
`than one way to render 3D data? I assume that it's not limited such that the
`only way of doing is to direct volume rendering. Is that fair?
` MS. FREEMAN: Yes. Actually, we included a slide as
`background on the prior art. Direct volume rendering is, as you would
`expect from the inclusion of direct as an adjective in front of volume
`rendering, it is a subset of volume rendering. And you can see this in both
`Amira and also in the background we referenced Casas discloses volume
`rendering when we reference page 75, sorry, paragraph 75 of Casas on
`Petition page 26. This is on slide 39. And it provides a little background on
`types of volume rendering that exist, which include direct volume rendering,
`but aren't limited to volume rendering. And there's of course, other types of
`rendering. There's segmentation, and there's just a lot of different types of
`rendering that are possible even within volume rendering. And once you do
`volume rendering, you can do further rendering and/or segmentation based
`on the volume rendering that you've done. So I hope that I've answered your
`question.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yeah. That's very helpful. I appreciate it.
`
`Thank you. So, obviously, we know what the arguments are in this case,
`and Patent Owner's attempt to read in direct volume rendering into its 3D
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`data construction. I did not see that word in the specification. I mean, you
`can correct me if I'm wrong, but was there anything in the limitations
`themselves that would speak to direct volume rendering specifically or is
`this just something that -- and I think I understand you to argue that they're
`just trying to read into the claim to further limit it.
` MS. FREEMAN: Yeah. So if you look at slide 38, the '271
`Patent never mentions direct volume rendering. And during the deposition
`of Novarad's proffered expert Mulumudi, he testified that he could only
`recognize direct volume rendering by the phrase direct volume rendering.
`That phrase appears nowhere in the Patent, so we think they don't really
`have a reasonable basis even to use an unqualified expert to try and read
`direct volume rendering limitation into the claims. Additionally, I would
`note that both Novarad and its proffered expert, Mulumudi, distinguish
`between 3D data and direct volume rendering when they say, for example,
`DVR is a method for visualizing medical imaging data. That is
`distinguishing the data from the process of direct volume rendering.
`Similarly, Novarad and Mulumudi both said, Novarad operates on the
`original data set. That distinguishes DVR and what it operates on from the
`data, which is the original data set. I don't know -- are there any more
`questions? I'm not sure how much time I have left.
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I have a question. I have a question for you,
`counsel, if you can indulge me for a second. On your new ground, you state
`that for the confined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape, your Petition
`relies on several embodiments of Doo. And I'd like for you to clarify how
`exactly are you stitching together all these embodiments in this anticipation
`ground. For example, you say that it's Figure 7, which is a false 3D or a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`2.5D wrapped image on top of a body. Then you discuss Figure 9 as the
`actual volume within which