`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`US ENDODONTICS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GOLD STANDARD INSTRUMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case: PGR2015-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,876,991
`____________________
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF A. JON GOLDBERG, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00019 – Ex. 1042
`US Endodontics, LLC, Petitioner
`1
`
`
`
`I, A. Jon Goldberg, Ph.D., do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration (Ex. 1002) in this proceeding, in
`
`support of US Endodontics, LLC’s (“Petitioner”) petition for post-grant review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,876,991 (“the ’991 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I am not an employee of Petitioner or any affiliate thereof.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in connection with this
`
`proceeding at a rate of $400 per hour, plus expenses.
`
`4. My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the
`
`opinions I offer below, or upon the outcome of the post-grant review.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide testimony in response to certain
`
`positions taken by Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`certain alleged deficiencies in the original laboratory testing commissioned by
`
`Petitioner. Exs. 1015, 1018. I have also been asked to provide my opinions
`
`regarding the supplemental laboratory testing commissioned by Petitioner, which
`
`was conducted on additional samples of the same model of endodontic file
`
`previously tested (ProFile brand, of size 20, .04 taper, and 25 mm length). Ex.
`
`1041.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has taken the position that the testing
`
`conducted on shanks heat-treated at 25°C, Ex. 1018, should be disregarded because
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`the claims 12-16 of the ’991 patent require heat treatments of above 25°C. Paper
`
`27, p. 18. As set forth in my Declaration dated August 3, 2015, and based on my
`
`knowledge and experience, heat treatments of shanks slightly above 25°C would
`
`not result in the shanks having characteristics that differ appreciably from shanks
`
`heat-treated at 25°C. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 101, 102. Since shanks heat-treated at
`
`25°C exhibited between 0.04 and 2.19 degrees of permanent deformation,
`
`averaging 0.87 degrees, and far below the 10 degrees recited in the claims, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 105, I would not expect heat-treating at temperatures slightly above 25°C
`
`to result in the shanks achieving close to 10 degrees of permanent deformation
`
`after torque at 45° of flexion when tested in accordance with ISO Standard 3630-1.
`
`The supplemental testing of shanks heat-treated at 40°C confirms this opinion, as
`
`the results show between 0.56 and 1.50 degrees of permanent deformation,
`
`averaging 1.00 degrees, which is still far below the 10 degrees recited in the
`
`claims. Ex. 1041, p. 13.
`
`8.
`
`I further understand that Patent Owner has taken the position that the
`
`testing commissioned by Petitioner should have included testing of shanks heat-
`
`treated for durations longer than 12 hours. Paper 27, p. 22.The supplemental
`
`testing of shanks heat-treated at 40°C and 300°C for 24 hours and 28 hours
`
`confirms that even much longer heat treatment durations at these temperatures do
`
`not result in shanks achieving close to 10 degrees of permanent deformation after
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`torque at 45° of flexion when tested in accordance with ISO Standard 3630-1. Ex.
`
`1041, p. 13. The testing results show between 0.56 and 1.37 degrees of permanent
`
`deformation for such longer duration heat treatments at 40°C, and between 1.36
`
`and 2.59 degrees of permanent deformation for such longer duration heat
`
`treatments at 300°C. Ex. 1041, p. 13.
`
`9.
`
`I also understand that Patent Owner has taken the position that in the
`
`prior testing, bending in the same direction as any initial bend resulted in
`
`considerably less permanent deformation than had the samples been bent in the
`
`opposite direction. Paper 27, pp. 22-23. I disagree. As an initial matter, nothing in
`
`the ’991 patent specification or the ISO Standard 3630-1 provides any guidance to
`
`bend in the opposite direction as any initial bend. Further, given that the initial
`
`bend angles are very small (the largest being 0.98 degrees in the original testing), I
`
`would not have expected that bending in the opposite direction would have
`
`resulted in permanent deformation measurements substantially closer to 10
`
`degrees. The supplemental testing, which was performed by bending in the
`
`opposite direction as any initial bend, Ex. 1041, p. 10, confirms this opinion. The
`
`supplemental testing results showed between 0.56 and 1.50 degrees of permanent
`
`deformation for heat treatments at 40°C, and between 1.36 and 2.59 degrees of
`
`permanent deformation for heat treatments at 300°C. Ex. 1041, p. 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`10. Overall, the supplemental laboratory testing refutes the alleged
`
`deficiencies raised by Patent Owner, and is consistent with the opinions provided
`
`in my previous declaration (Ex. 1002).
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on August _Ji__, 2016
`
`5
`
`