throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
` Entered: September 22, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`C.R. BARD, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Petitioner”) timely filed a request for rehearing
`(“Rehearing Request” or “Request”) of our decision on institution of inter
`partes review (“Institution Decision” or “Decision”). Paper 10 (“Req.”).
`The Request seeks rehearing of our determination to deny institution of inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–13, 15–19, 21, and 22 (collectively, “the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,257,325 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`’325 patent”) on the asserted grounds of obviousness over (1) PORTS,1
`Powers,2 PowerPort,3 and Hickman,4 (2) PORTS, Powers, Sayre,5 and
`Hickman, and (3) PORTS, Powers, Meyer,6 and Hickman. Paper 9 (“Inst.
`Dec.”). For the reasons given below, we deny the Rehearing Request.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`When rehearing a decision whether to institute inter partes review, we
`review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The
`burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party
`challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing
`“must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`previously addressed in” the petition. Id.
`ANALYSIS
`In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of inter partes
`
`review based on our determination that the Petition does not “provide[]
`adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the asserted
`references to reach the venous access port recited” in each challenged claim.
`Inst. Dec. 9, 11, 14; see id. at 14–19. We found the Petition’s proffered
`multi-step obviousness analysis to reach the limitation of independent
`claim 1 reciting “the flange further comprising X-ray discernable indicia
`
`
`1 BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, PORTS (2003) (EX. 1002, “PORTS”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,785,302 B2 (Ex. 1003, “Powers”).
`3 BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, POWERPORT: GUIDELINES FOR CT
`TECHNOLOGISTS (2007) (Ex. 1004, “PowerPort”).
`4 BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, HICKMAN® SUBCUTANEOUS PORTS &
`HICKMAN®/BROVIAC® CATHETERS (1992) (Ex. 1017, “Hickman”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,826,257 B2 (Ex. 1007, “Sayre”).
`6 French Patent No. 1,509,165 (Ex. 1005, “Meyer”).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`configured to indicate, under X-ray examination, that the port assembly is
`rated for power injection” and the corresponding limitations of independent
`claims 12 and 17 to be deficient for several reasons. See id. at 8–19.
`In particular, “[f]irst, we agree[d] with Patent Owner that the Petition
`does not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why it
`would have been obvious in view of Powers to modify the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS—which Petitioner does not allege is indicated for
`power injection—to be rated for power injection,” according to the first step
`of Petitioner’s proposed obviousness analysis. Id. at 11–12. “Second, we
`also” found that “the Petition fails to explain sufficiently why it would have
`been obvious to modify the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS
`to have X-ray discernable indicia in the form of voids configured to indicate
`that the port assembly is rated for power injection, as alleged in the
`Petition.” Id. at 12–14. Specifically, “[w]e agree[d] with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the suture slots and orientation
`holes in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS function as
`X-ray discernable indicia.” Id. at 12–13. Moreover, “we agree[d] with
`Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning based on
`Powers and [either] PowerPort[, Sayre, or Meyer] for modifying the
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS to include X-ray discernable indicia of
`power injection capability in the flange.” Id. at 13–14, 16–19.
`A.
`In the Rehearing Request, Petitioner challenges our determination in
`the Institution Decision that “the Petition does not provide adequate
`reasoning with rational underpinning” for the first step of Petitioner’s
`proffered obviousness analysis, namely “modify[ing] the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS . . . to be rated for power injection.” Id. at 11; see
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`Req. 1–8. Petitioner’s arguments focus on our underlying reasoning and
`findings, which found the Petition’s assertion and the cited testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Steven J. Tallarida, alleging that one of ordinary
`skill would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port “could be”
`constructed and would have been modified to handle power injection to be
`conclusory and unsupported. Inst. Dec. 11–12; see Req. 1–8. Petitioner also
`objects to our reasoning that the Petition and the cited testimony “do not
`explain how the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS would have been
`modified so as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point to any
`disclosure in Powers that would have suggested how such a modification
`would have been made.” Inst. Dec. 12; see Req. 1–8.
`In the Request, Petitioner argues that power injectable ports, as well
`as rating of ports as power injectable, “were clearly known at the time the
`application for the [’]325 patent was filed” and, thus, “it was well within the
`knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] how to construct” such a
`port. Req. 2–3, 5. According to Petitioner, the ’325 patent provides
`evidence that the construction of power injectable ports was within the skill
`of the art, because the specification does not disclose how to construct
`access ports or power injectable ports, and does not distinguish between
`power and non-power injectable ports other than explaining that it is
`desirable to identify a port as rated for power injection. Id. at 4–6. As
`support, Petitioner cites to the written description and enablement
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and precedent holding that a patent need
`not teach what was well known in the art. Id. at 2, 4–6. In addition,
`Petitioner—citing paragraph 165 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration—argues that
`a person of ordinary skill would have known that the Titanium Implanted
`Port of PORTS could be constructed to handle power injection, because
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`power and non-power injectable ports comprise “similar structures” and “the
`Titanium Implanted Port has the same structural elements as a power
`injectable port.” Id. at 3–4, 8. Thus, according to Petitioner, the Board
`overlooked and misapprehended the limited disclosure of the ’325 patent
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 3, 6.
`Petitioner further argues that the Board erred in giving Mr. Tallarida’s
`testimony little to no weight and quotes testimony from paragraphs 148, 149,
`151, 165, 196, 198, and 199 of his declaration. Id. at 6–7.
`Petitioner’s assertions of error are not persuasive. The only evidence
`cited in the Petition to support Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary
`skill would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS “could
`be” constructed and “would” have been modified in view of Powers to
`handle power injection—the first step of Petitioner’s proposed obviousness
`analysis—are paragraphs 147 and 148 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration. See
`Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 147–48), 41–42 (no citation), 51 (no citation), 56
`(no citation). In paragraph 147 of the declaration, Mr. Tallarida
`acknowledges that the Titanium Implanted Port is not power injectable—but
`does not explain how or why it would have been modified to be power
`injectable. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 147. As to paragraph 148, the Institution
`Decision expressly addressed this paragraph, finding it conclusory and
`lacking adequate explanation and any supporting citations. Inst. Dec. 11–12.
`The Rehearing Request shows no error in our determinations regarding the
`defects in the Petition’s reasoning and the cited portions of Mr. Tallarida’s
`declaration testimony. Nor does the Request show that we overlooked
`arguments made, or supporting evidence cited in, the Petition, as required on
`rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to rely on paragraphs 146, 149, 151, 165, 196–99,
`228, and 249 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration—which were not cited in
`support of the Petition’s arguments on the issue of whether it whether it
`would have been obvious to modify the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS
`to be power injectable—to support its arguments on the issue in its
`Rehearing Request is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, we
`note that several of these paragraphs, including paragraphs 146, 149, 197,
`199, 228, and 249, are not relevant to the issue. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 146, 149,
`197, 199, 228, 249.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s argument that power injectable ports, as well
`as ratings of ports as power injectable, were known is misplaced. The
`Institution Decision recognized that power injectable ports, and indicia
`thereof, were known. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 7 (“Powers describes an access
`port with a feature structured to identify the port as being rated for power
`injection after subcutaneous implantation”) (PowerPort’s “Bard Access
`System’s PowerPort implanted port . . . is indicated for power injection of
`contrast media”). The Decision’s reasoning makes clear that the issue with
`Petitioner’s showing is not whether power injectable ports, or indicia
`thereof, were known but instead is the absence of any explanation and
`support for the Petition’s assertions, and the cited supporting testimony of
`Mr. Tallarida, as to why a person of ordinary skill would have known that
`the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS, specifically, could have been
`modified to be power injectable and how a person of ordinary skill would
`have done so. See id. at 11–12. Accordingly, the Rehearing Request’s
`assertions that power injectable ports were known and citations to
`paragraphs 151, 196, and 198 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration, in which he
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`opines that Powers and PowerPort disclose power injectable ports, show no
`error in the Decision’s reasoning or conclusions. See Req. 2–3, 5, 7.
`
`With respect to the Request’s more specific argument that the
`’325 patent specification’s alleged omission of an explanation as to how to
`construct power injectable ports demonstrates that such ports were within
`the knowledge in the art, even if Petitioner were to establish that the
`’325 patent omits such explanation and that the reason for the omission is or
`should be presumed to be that power injectable ports were known, the
`argument is misplaced for the reasons given above—namely, the fact that
`power injectable ports were known does not cure the deficiencies the
`Decision found in Petitioner’s obviousness showing. Moreover, the Request
`does not identify where the Petition made this particular argument regarding
`disclosures allegedly omitted from the ’325 patent. See id. at 1–6. Based on
`our review of the Petition, this argument was not articulated in the Petition.
`Thus, it is not properly raised on rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`The Rehearing Request’s argument that because power and
`non-power injectable ports comprise “similar structures” and “the Titanium
`Implanted Port has the same structural elements as a power injectable port,”
`a person of ordinary skill would have known that the Titanium Implanted
`Port could be constructed to handle power injection suffers from several
`deficiencies. See Req. 3–4, 8. The Request cites as support paragraph 165
`of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration, in which he opines: “Additionally, as both
`PORTS and Powers disclose venous access ports comprising a housing, a
`base, a discharge port, a reservoir and a septum, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port could be
`constructed to handle power injection as taught by Powers. Exhibit 1002,
`p. 10; Exhibit 1003.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 165; see Req. 3–4, 8.
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`First, the Request does not identify where this specific argument was
`made or where paragraph 165 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration was cited in the
`Petition. Moreover, based on our review of the Petition, this argument was
`not made and as noted above, this paragraph was not cited in support of
`Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would have known that
`the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS could be constructed to handle
`power injection and would have done so. See Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 147–48), 41–42 (no citation), 51 (no citation), 56 (no citation).
`Accordingly, the Request does not identify where the “matter was previously
`addressed” in the Petition—as required in a rehearing request under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Therefore, we need not consider on rehearing this
`argument or paragraph 165 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration.
`Second, Petitioner’s attempt in its Rehearing Request to rely on
`paragraph 165 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration to proffer a new argument not
`made in the Petition is impermissible for an additional reason—it constitutes
`incorporation by reference, which our rules prohibit. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document.”); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs.,
`LLC, IPR2014-00454, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12)
`(informative). Based on our review of the Petition, this paragraph of
`Mr. Tallarida’s declaration was cited only once as part of the conclusion of
`the Petition’s analysis of independent claim 1 in a citation to forty-four
`paragraphs of the declaration, which span eight pages of testimony. See
`Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 122–65). Arguments and information that are not
`presented and developed in the Petition, and instead are incorporated by
`reference to Mr. Tallarida’s declaration, are not entitled to consideration.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`Third, even if we were to consider the new argument and testimony in
`paragraph 165 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration, we find both conclusory and
`lacking adequate supporting reasoning and evidence. That power injectable
`ports, such as that disclosed in Powers, and non-power injectable ports, such
`as the Titanium Implanted Port in PORTS, have similar components,
`including “a housing, a base, a discharge port, a reservoir and a septum”—
`without more—is insufficient to explain why a person of ordinary skill
`would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port could be modified to be
`power injectable, or to explain how such a person would have modified it to
`be power injectable. In other words, a superficial reference to basic
`common elements of power and non-power injectable ports is not sufficient.
`Also, Mr. Tallarida’s declaration cites as support the entirety of Powers
`(Exhibit 1003)—a 45-page exhibit—and, thus, does not comply with the
`particularity and specificity that our governing statute and rules require of
`evidence supporting a petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)–(5).
`In conclusion, the Request shows no error, including any matter raised
`in the Petition that was overlooked or misapprehended, in the Institution
`Decision’s determination that the Petition lacks adequate reasoning for why
`it would have been obvious, in view of Powers, to modify the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS to be rated for power injection.
`B.
`We turn to the Rehearing Request’s arguments regarding the
`
`Institution Decision’s determination that the “Petition fails to explain
`sufficiently why it would have been obvious to modify the flange of the
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS to have X-ray discernable indicia in the
`form of voids configured to indicate that the port assembly is rated for power
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`injection, as alleged in the Petition” and the underlying findings and reasons
`given for this determination. See Inst. Dec. 12–14; Req. 9–15.
`i.
`The Rehearing Request disputes the Board’s determination in the
`
`Decision that “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the suture slots and
`orientation holes in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS
`function as X-ray discernable indicia.” Inst. Dec. 12; see Req. 9–11.
`Specifically, the Request argues that the Board overlooked the testimony of
`Mr. Tallarida, including paragraph 65 of his declaration, opining that
`“orientation holes are X-ray discernable indicia configured to indicate, under
`X-ray examination, the orientation of the assembly.” Req. 9–10 (citing
`Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 60, 62–67, 91, 133); Ex. 1009 ¶ 65. The Request also asserts
`that the Board “misapprehended the inherent function of orientation holes in
`the Titanium Implanted Port,” namely to indicate the “orientation of the
`assembly” under X-ray examination. Req. 10–11. In addition, the Request
`argues that “the Board overlooked and/or misapprehended that the
`orientation holes on the Titanium Implanted Port are voids extending
`through a titanium flange that are X-ray discernable.” Id. at 10.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. The Request merely
`repeats numerous assertions made in the Petition, including those from its
`discussion of the alleged teachings of PORTS and its proffered obviousness
`analysis. The Institution Decision, however, considered the arguments made
`and weighed the evidence cited in the Petition—including PORTS and the
`cited declaration testimony of Mr. Tallarida—and determined that they were
`insufficient to show sufficiently that the orientation holes of the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS function as X-ray discernable indicia, as asserted
`in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 12–13. In other words, we did not overlook or
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`misapprehend Petitioner’s assertions on the issue; rather, we disagreed that
`Petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to substantiate them.
`In particular, we did not overlook the relevant testimony of
`Mr. Tallarida cited in the Petition. Instead, the Institution Decision
`expressly addressed his testimony on the issue—with a citation to exemplary
`paragraphs containing relevant testimony, “See, e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 64–65,
`150, 157, 159, 163, 183”—and concluded that the testimony is entitled to
`little to no weight because it is conclusory and lacks adequate explanation
`and support. Inst. Dec. 13. We explained that “[t]he only supporting
`citation Mr. Tallarida provides for his testimony is to the entirety of PORTS,
`a seventeen-page exhibit.” Id.; see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)–(5). In its Rehearing Request, Petitioner quotes paragraph 65
`of Mr. Tallarida’s testimony, one of the paragraphs expressly addressed in
`the Decision. Req. 9–10. Petitioner’s quoting the paragraph, however, does
`not show any error in our determination. In addition, the Institution
`Decision need not refer explicitly to each potentially relevant paragraph of
`Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony, yet we note that the paragraphs of
`Mr. Tallarida’s declaration cited in the Request that were not referenced
`expressly in the Decision, including paragraphs 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, and 133,
`also suffer from the deficiencies explained in the Decision.
`
`In addition, Petitioner appears to be attempting to raise an inherency
`argument for the first time in its Rehearing Request, arguing that the “Board
`misapprehended the inherent function of the orientation holes” in the
`Titanium Implanted Port as indicating orientation under X-ray examination
`and a person of ordinary skill would have known that the orientation holes
`are “inherently” X-ray discernable indicia. Req. 10–11. The cited pages of
`the Petition do not make such an inherency argument. See id. at 9–11 (citing
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`Pet. 12, 18–19, 28, 30, 32); Pet. 12, 18–19, 28, 30, 32. Accordingly,
`Petitioner has not shown “where [this] matter was previously addressed” in
`the Petition, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), and it is an improper new
`argument on rehearing. Even if we were to consider Petitioner’s new
`inherency argument, it fails for the same reasons the Decision found the
`similar argument made in the Petition—namely, that the orientation holes of
`the Titanium Implanted Port function as indicia of orientation under X-ray
`examination—to be deficient as lacking sufficient support in the evidence
`cited in the Petition. See Inst. Dec. 10, 12–13.
`In sum, the Request shows no error, including any matter that was
`overlooked or misapprehended, in the Decision’s determination that the
`Petition fails to show sufficiently that the orientation holes in the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS function as X-ray discernable indicia.
`ii.
`The Rehearing Request also challenges the Institution Decision’s
`
`determination that the Petition does not “provide adequate reasoning based
`on Powers and [either] PowerPort,” Sayre, or Meyer “for modifying the
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS to include X-ray discernable indicia of
`power injection capability in the flange.” Id. at 13–19; see Req. 11–14. The
`Request argues that this determination is incorrect because it overlooks
`and/or misapprehends Mr. Tallarida’s testimony, in paragraphs 210 and
`214–219 of his declaration, that a person of ordinary skill would have
`modified the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port to include alphanumeric
`voids. See Req. 12–14 (citing and quoting Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 210, 214–19).
`Petitioner also argues that we misapprehended the Petition’s arguments
`regarding PowerPort, Sayre, and Meyer, which the Petition cites as
`“examples of voids in the shape of alphanumeric characters.” Req. 11–12.
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`
`Petitioner’s argument that we misapprehended and overlooked the
`Petition’s assertions regarding PowerPort, Sayre, and Meyer is without
`merit. The Institution Decision explicitly acknowledged that the Petition
`proffers PowerPort, Sayre, and Meyer as disclosing voids in the form of
`alphanumeric characters and PowerPort as further disclosing voids shaped as
`the letters “C” and “T” to identify the port as rated for power injection. E.g.,
`Inst. Dec. 9–10 (“Petitioner cites PowerPort for disclosing [a port] with the
`characters ‘C’ and ‘T’ formed as voids to identify the port as rated for power
`injection under X-ray examination.”); id. at 16 (“Petitioner argues . . .
`‘Sayre, like PowerPort, teaches indicia in the form of alphanumeric
`character cutouts (voids).’”); id. at 17–18 (“Petitioner argues . . . ‘Meyer,
`like PowerPort and Sayre, teaches indicia in the form of alphanumeric
`characters (voids).’”). The Decision considered and addressed these
`arguments in the analysis. Having concluded that the Petition does not make
`a sufficient showing that the orientation holes in the flange of the Titanium
`Implanted Port of PORTS function as X-ray discernable indicia—addressed
`above—the Decision considered the Petition’s arguments and supporting
`evidence regarding Powers, together with each of PowerPort, Sayre, and
`Meyer, and found they lacked adequate reasoning to support the proposed
`modification of the Titanium Implanted Port to include X-ray discernable
`indicia in the flange. See id. at 13–14, 16–19. The Rehearing Request
`shows no error in these determinations. See id. at 13–19.
`
`Nor did the Institution Decision overlook and misapprehend
`Mr. Tallarida’s testimony, as the Request argues. Rather, in the Decision,
`we considered the declaration testimony cited in the Petition and found it
`insufficient to support the Petition’s assertions. See, e.g., id. at 12–13.
`Paragraphs 210 and 214–19 of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration, cited in the
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`Request, are part of Mr. Tallarida’s discussion of independent claim 12.
`Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 201, 210, 214–19; see Req. 12–14 (citing and quoting Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 210, 214–19). For most of these paragraphs (paragraphs 210, 214, 215,
`and 218), the Institution Decision explicitly addressed the identical or nearly
`identical paragraphs of Mr. Tallarida’s testimony regarding independent
`claim 1 and found them to be entitled to little to no weight and insufficient to
`show that the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS is a known
`location of X-ray discernable indicia. See Inst. Dec. 13 (citing, inter alia,
`Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 150, 157, 159, 163); compare Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 150, 157, 159, 163,
`with id. ¶¶ 214, 210, 215, 218. The Decision found the Petition’s assertions
`and evidence regarding claim 12 to be insufficient for the same reasons as
`claim 1. Inst. Dec. 14–15. Thus, the Request’s citation and quotation of this
`testimony directed to claim 12 does not undermine or show error in our
`conclusions in the Decision.
`
`The additional paragraphs of Mr. Tallarida’s declaration quoted in the
`Rehearing Request that the Decision did not refer to expressly (or refer to an
`equivalent paragraph)—namely paragraphs 216, 217, and 219—also show
`no error in the Decision. For example, these paragraphs do not contradict
`our conclusions that Mr. Tallarida’s testimony that the flange of the
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS is a known location for X-ray
`discernable indicia is conclusory and lacks adequate explanation and
`support, and that the Petition does not provide adequate reasoning based on
`Powers and either PowerPort, Sayre, or Meyer as to why one of ordinary
`skill would have “modif[ied] the Titanium Implanted Port . . . to include
`X-ray discernable indicia in the flange” specifically. See id. at 13–19.
`In conclusion, the Request shows no error, including any matter raised
`in the Petition that was overlooked or misapprehended, in the Institution
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`Decision’s determination that the Petition fails to provide adequate
`reasoning for modifying the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS to include
`X-ray discernable indicia of power injection capability in the flange.
`C.
`More generally, the Rehearing Request argues that the Board
`
`overlooked Mr. Tallarida’s personal knowledge of the structure and
`functions of power and non-power injectable ports and, specifically, the
`Titanium Implanted Port in PORTS and the power injectable port in
`PowerPort. Req. 8–9. Regardless of an expert’s personal knowledge, a
`factfinder need not credit and give probative weight to the expert’s
`testimony where it is not explained and supported adequately. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or
`data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); In re
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Rohm &
`Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Petitioner
`has shown no error in the Institution Decision’s determinations to give little
`to no weight to portions of Mr. Tallarida’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 11, 13.
`CONCLUSION
`We have reviewed all of the arguments in the Rehearing Request and
`find them to be without merit. Petitioner has not shown that the decision
`denying institution of inter partes review of the challenged claims of the
`’325 patent constituted an abuse of discretion.
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (Paper 10) is denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`PETITIONER:
`Michael J. Fink
`Arnold Turk
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Alfred W. Zaher
`Jonathan R. Bowser
`Roger H. Lee
`Shawn Li
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555
`Alfred.Zaher@bipc.com
`Shawn.Li@bipc.com
`Jon.Bowser@bipc.com
`Roger.Lee@bipc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`16

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket