Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: March 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`ELEKTA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
` VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK BOUCHER, and
`GARTH BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: March 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`ELEKTA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
` VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK BOUCHER, and
`GARTH BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Elekta, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, Paper 1 (“Pet.”), to institute
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 9, 11, and 13 (the “challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,888,919 B2 (“the ’919 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`
`Response, Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the petition should be
`
`denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review
`
`may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having
`
`considered the arguments and the associated evidence presented in the
`
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we
`
`institute inter partes review of all the challenged claims (claims 1–4, 9, 11,
`
`and 13).
`
`
`
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`Petitioner identifies itself and Elekta AB, Elekta Instrument AB, and
`
`Elekta Holdings U.S., Inc., as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 55.
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`
`The Petition states that Patent Owner asserted the ’919 patent in
`
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Elekta AB et al., No. 15-871-LPS, filed on
`
`September 25, 2015, and served on September 29, 2015. Pet. 55.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`THE ’919 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`
`The invention in the ’919 patent concerns an X-ray and electron
`
`radiotherapy machine for use in radiation treatment applications, e.g.,
`
`oncology radiation therapy. Ex. 1001, 1:7–10. The ’919 Patent states that
`
`due to natural variations in the human body and changes in tumors during
`
`treatment, one challenge in radiotherapy is accurate positioning of the tumor
`
`in the radiation field. Id. at 1:28–39. High energy megavolt radiation used
`
`for therapeutic treatment produces low contrast images that are used
`
`primarily for confirming the target volume has been radiated. Id. at 1:40–49.
`
`Low energy X-rays, typically 125 kV peak, are more useful for targeting or
`
`diagnostic information because they provide contrast that is far superior to
`
`that available in images generated from therapeutic megavolt electron
`
`beams. Id. at 1:49–64. A common treatment approach has been to use two
`
`separate imagers, each sensitive to an energy range, i.e., a low energy imager
`
`for diagnostic purposes and to provide accurate targeting and a high energy
`
`therapeutic imager to confirm the target has been radiated. Id. at 1:57–67.
`
`Figure 1A, labelled “Prior Art,” shows a radiotherapy machine with a
`
`therapeutic radiation source directed to a therapeutic imager and a single
`
`diagnostic radiation source directed to a diagnostic imager. Id. at 2:19–32.
`
`Figure 1B, also labelled “Prior Art,” shows a radiotherapy machine with a
`
`therapeutic radiation source capable of propagating high energy therapeutic
`
`energy to a therapeutic imager and, attached to support structures, two
`
`diagnostic radiation sources at off angles from the therapeutic radiation
`
`source, each in line with an imager to receive the radiation. Id. at 2:43–42.
`
`The entire structure of radiation sources and imagers can be pivoted together
`
`by a common base. Id. at 2:43–44. The ’919 Patent notes that, because 360
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`degrees of rotation of the support structure holding the radiation source is
`
`required to radiate the target volume from different directions without
`
`turning the patient over, there is limited space for the various machine
`
`components. Id. at 2:44–61. The ’919 Patent addresses the space limitations
`
`with a radiotherapy machine structure that uses a multiple-energy imager.
`
`Id. at 3:3–7, 11–14. None of the challenged claims, however, is limited to a
`
`multiple energy imager.
`
`An annotated version of Figure 2A of the ’919 Patent labelling the
`
`parts of a radiotherapy machine embodiment that has its therapeutic and
`
`diagnostic energy sources on separate C-shaped arms with one arm having a
`
`smaller radius of curvature nestled within the other arm is shown below. Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 2A, 5:12–14, 43–46.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`Annotated Version of Figure 2A of the ’919 Patent
`
`
`
`In Figure 2A, therapeutic radiation source 202 is mounted on first arm
`
`(first gantry) 206, and diagnostic radiation source 204 is mounted on second
`
`arm (second gantry) 208 nestled within the first arm, with both arms on a
`
`common pivot axis 210 around which the arms can pivot independently. Id.
`
`at 5:12–18. The inner arm (second gantry) can extend and retract diagnostic
`
`radiation source 204 for positioning and clearance. Id. at 18–20. The first
`
`arm is attached pivotally to base stand 216 to permit 360 degree rotation of
`
`therapeutic energy source 204. Multiple-energy imager 212 can be attached
`
`at an articulating end 220 of inner arm (second gantry) 208 that is opposite
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`from end 218 where diagnostic radiation source 204 is mounted to articulate
`
`multiple energy imager 212 into alignment with either therapeutic radiation
`
`source 202 or diagnostic radiation source 204. Id. at 5:25–30. Articulating
`
`end 220 of inner arm 208 can contain any number of pivot joints (three pivot
`
`joints 226, 227, 228 are shown) from single plane pivots to ball joints having
`
`360 degrees of rotation so that multiple-energy imager 212 can be placed in
`
`alignment with and at a distance from radiation sources 202 and 204 with
`
`treatment target volume 224 positioned in between them. Id. at 5:58–6:4.
`
`Articulating end 220 of arm 208 can also retract the multiple-energy imager
`
`into retracted position 212.
`
`Annotated Figure 2B below illustrates an alternative embodiment in
`
`which therapeutic radiation source 202 and diagnostic radiation source 204
`
`are placed adjacent to each other on the first gantry. Id. at 6:12.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`Annotated Version of Figure 2B of ’919 Patent
`
`In this embodiment, the second gantry (inner arm) can be attached to
`
`the pivot axis with an opposite end attached to articulating multiple-energy
`
`imaging unit 212, so that it can be rotated to align the multiple imaging unit
`
`212 with radiation source 202 or 204 with target volume 224 positioned in
`
`between them. Id. at 6:16–21.
`
`Figures 3A–3E of the ’919 Patent illustrate various positions of the
`
`radiotherapy machine during operation.
`
`
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first therapeutic radiation source attached to a first
`gantry;
`at least one second radiation source;
`a second gantry that is rotatable, the second gantry is
`attached to the first gantry; and
`an imager attached to an articulable end of the second
`gantry.
`
`13. An apparatus comprising:
`a first radiation source attached to a first gantry;
`at least one second radiation source;
`a second gantry that is rotatable, wherein the second
`gantry is capable of extending and retracting the
`second radiation source attached to the second
`gantry; and
`an imager attached to an articulable end of the second
`gantry.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`Unlike claim 1, claim 13 does not limit the first radiation source to a
`
`“therapeutic” radiation source and does not limit the second gantry to one
`
`that is “attached to the first gantry.” Claim 13 also differs from claim 1 in its
`
`recitation that the second gantry that is rotatable “is capable of extending
`
`and retracting the second radiation source attached to the second gantry.”
`
`Claim 1 does not limit the attachment of the second radiation source.
`
`Challenged claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the second
`
`radiation source is attached to the second gantry. Challenged claim 3
`
`depends from claim 1 and recites that the therapeutic radiation source
`
`propagates therapeutic energy at a first level; challenged claim 4 depends
`
`from claim 1 and recites that the second radiation source propagates
`
`diagnostic energy at a second energy level. Challenged claim 9 recites that
`
`the articulable end of claim 1 comprises at least one pivot point between the
`
`second gantry and the imager. Challenged claim 11 recites that the
`
`articulable end of claim 1 is capable of folding the imager against the second
`
`gantry.
`
`
`
`
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,233,990 issued on
`Aug. 10, 1993
`U,S. Patent No.
`6,325,537 B1 issued on
`Dec. 4, 2001
`
`Designation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Barnea
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Watanabe
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,426,725 issued on
`Jan. 17, 1984
`
`
`
`Grady
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTED IN PETITION
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`1–4, 9, 11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Challenge
`Obvious over Barnea
`in view of Watanabe
`Anticipated by Grady
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In applying a broadest reasonable
`
`construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must
`
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner
`
`has submitted, as supplemental information, claim constructions adopted by
`
`the district court in Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Elekta AB et al., No. 15-
`
`871-LPS (D. Del.). Petitioner’s Stipulated Motion to File Supplemental
`
`Information (Paper 7), Ex. 1016. Although the district court does not apply
`
`the broadest reasonable construction standard, we consider the court’s
`
`instructions as informative to our analysis of the terms at issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “gantry,” “an
`
`articulable end of the second gantry,” and “rotatable.” Pet. 18–22. Patent
`
`Owner proposes constructions for “gantry,” “a second gantry that is
`
`rotatable,” “articulable end [of the second gantry],” and “extending and
`
`retracting [the second radiation source].” Prelim. Resp. 21–34.
`
`Gantry
`
`Petitioner proposes that we construe “gantry,” as used in the claims of
`
`the ’919 Patent, to mean “arm.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner proposes that we
`
`construe “gantry” to have its plain and ordinary meaning or to mean
`
`“structure that holds radiation source(s) and/or imager(s).” Prelim. Resp. 21.
`
`Arguing that the patentee acts as his own lexicographer, Petitioner cites the
`
`Specification’s description of arms in the radiotherapy machine and its use
`
`of “gantry” in parentheticals as evidence that the patentee intended “gantry”
`
`to mean “arm.” Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner contends that in the relevant art
`
`“gantry” is used for the component of a radiotherapy system that holds the
`
`therapeutic radiation source and any imagers or diagnostic sources and is not
`
`limited to a specific type of structure or component. Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001, Declaration of Dr. Kenneth P. Gall (“Gall Dec.”) ¶ 67).
`
`According to Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Gall, in the relevant field,
`
`“gantry” and “arm” are not used interchangeably. Ex. 2001, Gall Dec. ¶ 67.
`
`Dr. Gall cites several other patents that use the term gantry to support his
`
`testimony that the terms “gantry” and “arm” are not used interchangeably in
`
`the art. Id. ¶¶ 70–72. Dr. Gall’s testimony, however, indicates that there is
`
`no consistent use of the terms in the art. In U.S. Patent No. 5,448,607 it is
`
`not clear that the arms identified by Dr. Gall are part of the “gantry
`
`assembly.” Id. ¶ 70. In U.S. Patent No. 6,614,036, Dr. Gall does not state
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`how or whether the “swing arm” he identifies is related to the gantry. Id. ¶
`
`71. In U.S. Patent No. 5,727,554, the “arms” identified by Dr. Gall appear
`
`to be integral parts of the gantry. Id. ¶ 72. From these examples, Dr. Gall
`
`concludes that the term “gantry” has a consistent meaning in the art, but the
`
`term “arm” does not. Id. Based on Dr. Gall’s testimony, however, it
`
`appears that neither the term “gantry” nor the term “arm” has a consistent
`
`meaning in the art. Thus, we focus our inquiry on the ordinary meaning of
`
`the terms and how they are used in the Specification.
`
`Notwithstanding the parentheticals in the ’919 Patent referring to
`
`“arms” as “gantries” (Ex. 1001, 5:5–26), Dr. Gall states that “gantry” and
`
`“arm” are not used interchangeably in the ’919 Specification. Id. ¶¶ 68–69.
`
`Dr. Gall testifies that the term “arm” has no consistent meaning and appears
`
`only in the context of particular embodiments reflected in Figures 2A and
`
`2B and claims 24 and 25 to indicate that the arms described in those
`
`embodiments are gantries. Id. However, the embodiments in Figures 2A
`
`and 2B are the only embodiments shown in the ’919 Specification—the
`
`Specification does not identify Figures 3A–3E as an embodiment other than
`
`those shown in Figures 2A and 2B. In the context of medical applications,
`
`we have located the following dictionary definitions of “gantry:”
`
`(i) A frame housing the x-ray tube, collimators, and detectors in a
`CT machine, with a large opening into which the patient is
`inserted; a mechanical support for mounting a device to be
`moved in a circular path. Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary.
`(2012). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://medical-
`dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gantry
`
`(ii) A device—sometimes huge—for rotating a radiotheraphy
`apparatus around the patient to treat for cancer from different
`angles. Segen’s Medical Dictionary. (2011). Retrieved March
`20, 2017, from http://medical-dictionary.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`thefreedictionary.com/gantry
`
`(iii) A frame housing the x-ray, collimators, and detectors in a CT
`machine, and linear accelerator with a large opening into which
`the patient is inserted; a mechanical support for mounting a
`device to be moved in a circular path. Medical Dictionary for
`the Health Professions and Nursing. (2012). Retrieved March
`20, 2017, from http://medical-dictionary.
`thefreedictionary.com/gantry
`
`(iv) A name for a couch or table used in a CT scan. The patient lies
`on the gantry while it slides into the x-ray scanner portion.
`Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. (2008). Retrieved March 20,
`2017, from http://medical-dictionary.
`thefreedictionary.com/gantry
`
`See Ex. 3001. Definition (iv) above does not appear consistent with
`
`the use of “gantry” in the Specification of the ’919 patent. Definitions (i)
`
`and (iii) state that a gantry includes a frame housing X-rays, collimators and
`
`detectors. Definition (ii) states that a gantry is a device for rotating a
`
`radiotherapy apparatus around a patient. Consistent with these above
`
`definitions, claims 1 and 13 recite that a first radiation source is attached to
`
`the first gantry. However, neither claim 1 nor claim 13 recites a radiation
`
`source attached to the second gantry. In addition, in the embodiment in
`
`Figure 2B the diagnostic and therapeutic radiation sources are both mounted
`
`on the first gantry, but there is no radiation source on the second gantry.
`
`Thus, as used in the Specification, it does not appear that the term gantry
`
`requires that the structure hold a radiation source, as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner. In addition, although, independent claims 1 and 13 specifically
`
`recite that an imager is attached to a second gantry, claims 1 and 13 do not
`
`recite, nor does the Specification describe, an imager attached to the first
`
`gantry. Thus, the ’919 patent does not use the term “gantry” to describe a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`device that necessarily holds a radiation source or both an energy source and
`
`an imager, as proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`Definitions (i) and (ii) state that a gantry includes a mechanical
`
`support for moving a device in a circular path; definition (iii) states a gantry
`
`is a device for rotating a radiotherapy apparatus. Both claims 1 and 13 recite
`
`that the second gantry is rotatable. Neither claim 1 nor claim 13 recites
`
`explicitly that the first gantry is rotatable, although claim 1 recites that the
`
`first gantry is attached to the second gantry. In its argument concerning the
`
`term “rotatable” Patent Owner states “it is important to distinguish between
`
`what makes a component a ‘second gantry’ that is rotatable, rather than a
`
`‘first gantry.’” Prelim. Resp. 28.
`
`Neither claim 1 nor claim 13 limits the gantry to any particular shape
`
`or size. Thus, the only consistent use of the term “gantry” in the
`
`Specification appears to be a frame or arm to which either an energy source
`
`or an imager can be attached. Thus, for purposes of this decision, we apply
`
`this construction as the meaning of “gantry.” Our construction is similar to
`
`that adopted by the district court, i.e., “structure that is designed to hold
`
`radiation sources(s) and/or imager(s).”
`
`An articulable end [of the second gantry]
`
`Petitioner proposes that this term be construed to mean “an end
`
`portion of the second gantry that has jointed segments.” Pet. 19. Petitioner
`
`cites statements in the specification that the articulable end can contain pivot
`
`points, including single plane pivots and ball joints. Id. Petitioner also cites
`
`a dictionary that defines “articulate” to mean jointed, united by a joint, or to
`
`become united or connected by or as if by a joint. Id. (citing Ex. 1009,
`
`Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). Patent Owner proposes that this
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`term be construed to mean “the jointed end of the [second gantry] that is
`
`moved in and out of an operative position through pivoting.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`29–31. Patent Owner contends that the ’919 patent does not mention
`
`segments and does not describe a need for multiple segments. Id. at 29–30.
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the use of pivot points in some cases may
`
`require multiple segments, but argues that multiple segments are not a
`
`limitation of the claims. Id. at 30. Patent Owner contends that the term
`
`“operative position” in its proposed construction, although not used in the
`
`Specification, captures the essence of the invention and synthesizes the
`
`various intrinsic descriptions and depictions of what comprises an articulable
`
`end. Id.
`
`The district court construed this term to mean “the jointed end of the
`
`[second gantry].” Ex. 1016, 1. The Specification states that the inner arm
`
`22 “can articulate the multiple-energy imaging unit 212 into alignment with
`
`either radiation source 202 or 204.” Ex. 1001, 5:27–29. In performing this
`
`function, the articulating end can pivot the multiple-energy imaging unit
`
`along two independent axes in a plane, or ball joints can be used to provide
`
`360 degrees of rotation for positioning the imaging unit. Id. at 5:58–64. The
`
`translatable portion of the articulating joint can also be a set of sliding
`
`mechanisms that include well known gears and motors. Id. at 5:64–67.
`
`Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, we do not limit this
`
`term to a jointed end.
`
`Claims 1 and 13 recite an imager attached to an articulable end of the
`
`second gantry. The “articulable end” limitation of claims 1 and 13 recites a
`
`feature of the gantry, rather than the function of placing the imager into and
`
`out of positions that may or may not be operative positions of the imager.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`The words “of the second gantry” establishes the location of the articulable
`
`end. Therefore, in view of the dictionary definition of “articulate” and the
`
`description in the Specification of planar motion or rotation, we construe the
`
`limitation “an articulable end” as an end of the second gantry that includes a
`
`structure permitting at least one of planar or rotational motion. We note
`
`that a jointed end would conform to this construction.
`
`Rotatable/a second gantry that is rotatable
`
`Citing a dictionary definition of “rotate,” Petitioner proposes that we
`
`give the term “rotatable” its plain and ordinary meaning and construe the
`
`term to mean “configured to revolve on an axis.” Pet. 20–22. Patent Owner
`
`proposes that we construe the entire term “a second gantry that is rotatable”
`
`to mean a “second gantry that is configured to revolve around a target
`
`volume on its pivot axis.” Prelim. Resp. 25–29. Patent Owner argues that
`
`the Specification describes rotating the gantry to position either the
`
`therapeutic or diagnostic radiation source into alignment with the target
`
`volume, as distinguished from other types of rotation, such as articulation.
`
`Id. at 26–27. Patent Owner further argues that the claims recite only that the
`
`second gantry is rotatable and analogizes to a Ferris wheel in which the
`
`wheel is both rotating and rotatable, but a person riding the Ferris wheel is
`
`rotating, but not rotatable independently about the center axis. Id. at 28.
`
`None of the features Patent Owner argues is recited in the claims. Claims 1
`
`and 13 recite only that the second gantry is rotatable. The claims recite a
`
`structure that does not specify or limit the rotation to any particular axis.
`
`The claims do not specify any position of the second gantry or any function
`
`that requires a construction such as that urged by Patent Owner. In view of
`
`the absence of claim language that imposes any further limitation, we
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`construe the term “rotatable” to mean a structure that is capable of revolving
`
`about an axis. Our construction is similar to that adopted by the district
`
`court, i.e., “[gantry] that is configured to revolve about an axis.” Ex. 1016,
`
`1. We have already construed “gantry” to mean a frame having an arm to
`
`which either an energy source or an imager can be attached. Thus, we
`
`construe “a second gantry that is rotatable” to mean a frame or arm to which
`
`either an energy source or an imager can be attached, the structure being
`
`capable of revolving about an axis.
`
`Extending and retracting [the second radiation source]
`
`Patent Owner proposes that this term be construed to mean “moving
`
`the position of [the second radiation source] into and out of alignment with
`
`the target volume.” Prelim. Resp. 31. Patent Owner argues that “extend”
`
`and “retract” do not refer to just any direction but refer to the movement of
`
`the second diagnostic radiation source in and out of an operative position.
`
`Id. at 32. According to Patent Owner, the ’919 Patent makes clear in its
`
`discussion that “extend” and “retract” are for the purpose of placing the
`
`source and imager in alignment with the target volume in order to image the
`
`target volume. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:7–10). Claim 13, where this language
`
`appears, does not impose any such limitations. Claim 13 recites only a
`
`rotatable second gantry that “is capable of extending and retracting the
`
`second radiation source attached to the second gantry.” Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction reads into the claims a limitation as to the specific
`
`direction of extension and retraction. We do not read such a limitation into
`
`the claims and apply to the terms “extending” and “retracting” their ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a prior art reference
`
`discloses every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
`
`inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); see MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[t]o anticipate, a single reference must teach every
`
`limitation of the claimed invention”; any limitation not explicitly taught
`
`must be inherently taught and would be so understood by a person
`
`experienced in the field); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) (the dispositive question is “whether one skilled in the art
`
`would reasonably understand or infer” that a reference teaches or discloses
`
`all of the elements of the claimed invention).
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Claims 1– 4, 9, 11 and 13 as Obvious Over Barnea in View of
`Watanable
`
`Barnea discloses a method and apparatus for producing a diagnostic
`
`image so that required doses of radiation can be delivered to a target volume.
`
`Ex. 1012, 1:8–13. Barnea discloses X-ray tube 22 mounted on support
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`bracket 24 on the bottom side of gantry 4 positioned so the axis of the X-ray
`
`beam is coaxial with that of the treatment beam emitted by linac head 2. Ex.
`
`1012, 6:20–25. Bracket 25 mounted to gantry 4 supports detector 26
`
`between the patient and linac head, so that detector 26 may be exposed to
`
`either the high energy beam produced by the linac head or to the energy X-
`
`rays produced by X-ray tube 22, or both simultaneously. Id. at 6: 25–33.
`
`Barnea states:
`
`the heart of this invention lies in the recognition that verification
`of the correct position of a patient during treatment can be
`achieved by placing a detector between the treatment beam
`source and the patient, and placing an x-ray tube along the axis
`of the treatment beam. Given the position of the various
`components, a fixed geometrical relationship exists that permits
`the direct construction of verification images for immediate use
`during treatment.
`
`Id. at 6:4–13. Referencing Figure 3, Barnea discloses that for a given
`
`configuration of equipment the relationship between any point in the image
`
`created by the X-ray and the location of the same point in the corresponding
`
`image seen on the detector by the therapeutic beam is linear and fixed, so
`
`that one can be obtained from the other by a simple parallax correction. Id.
`
`at 6:65–7:4. “Therefore, the field of view of the therapeutic beam on the
`
`detector can be correlated to the image projected on the plane by the
`
`diagnostic beam by a simple computation, and the two fields of view can be
`
`compared for verification purposes.” Id. at 7:4–9.
`
`Watanabe discloses an X-ray diagnostic apparatus that differs from
`
`prior art systems by incorporating into the structure a C-shaped arm with an
`
`X-ray generator at one end and a planar X-ray detector at the other end. Ex.
`
`1004, 5:49–60. A holder having rollers for clamping a rail provided on a
`
`rear or side surface of the C-shaped arm is connected to the support column
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`fixed to the floor or ceiling, so as to be rotatable about the major axis. Id. at
`
`6:27–34. The direction of the X-ray generator is varied in association with
`
`the position of the X-ray detector by controlling a rotary mechanism for
`
`holding the X-ray generator and a link mechanism having two arms for
`
`holding the X-ray detector, so that the X-ray detector is always opposed to
`
`the X-ray generator. Id. at 6:3–10.
`
`As to claims 1 and 13, Petitioner cites Barnea’s linear accelerator
`
`(linac) head 2 mounted on an L-shaped arm gantry 4, having a source of
`
`therapeutic radiation output to treat a patient, and its verification apparatus
`
`20 having X-ray source 22 and imager 26 as disclosing the apparatus recited
`
`in the preamble, a first therapeutic radiation source attached to a first gantry,
`
`and a second radiation source, as claimed. Pet. 25–27, 41.
`
`As to claim 1, Petitioner cites Barnea’s support bracket 25 as the
`
`claimed second gantry, noting that bracket 25 constitutes an arm mounted on
`
`gantry 4 that supports imager 26. Id. at 28. Petitioner also notes Barnea’s
`
`explanation that gantry 4 is movable to rotate about a pivot point and that
`
`because bracket 25 is attached to gantry 4, bracket 25 also rotates about the
`
`pivot point. Id. Thus, according to Petitioner, Barnea discloses the second
`
`gantry that is rotatable and attached to the first gallery, as recited in claim 1.
`
`Id. at 28–29. The figure below is a reproduction of an annotated figure in
`
`the Petition showing Petitioner’s designation of elements in Barnea as
`
`compared to claim1 of the ’919 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Comparison of Figure 2 of Barnea
`To Limitations of Claim 1
`
`
`
`Id. at 29. Patent Owner reproduces this same Figure, but crosses out
`
`Petitioner’s designation of “Second Gantry” and replaces it with the term
`
`“Bracket,” as used in Barnea. Prelim. Resp. 45. Patent Owner also notes
`
`that Barena employs a verification apparatus with multiple arms, i.e., arm 26
`
`for the imager and arm 24 for the X-ray radiation source. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would not have considered
`
`bracket 25 in Barnea to be a “gantry” as that claim term is properly
`
`construed. Id. at 45–46. As discussed above, however, the use of the term
`
`“gantry” in the claims and in the Specification does not require that the
`
`gantry have both an imager and a radiation source.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent that Barnea does not disclose a second
`
`gantry, Petitioner cites as the second gantry Watanabe’s C-arm 14. Pet. 29–
`
`30. C-arm 14 is attached to Watanabe’s frame by holder 18 that allows the
`
`C-arm to rotate about a major axis. Id. at 29–30. The figure below is a
`
`reproduction from the Petition of a figure showing Petitioner’s combination
`
`of the teachings of Barnea and Watanabe.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01902
`Patent 6,888,919 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Depiction of Barnea
` and Watanabe Combined
`
`
`
`Pet. 35. Mounted on one end of Watanabe’s C-arm 14 is X-ray generator 12
`
`that Petitioner identifies as the claimed second radiation source and mounted
`
`at the other end of C-arm 14 is imager 16 attached via a link mechanism that
`
`Petitioner identifies as the claimed articulable end. Id. at 31.
`
`In response to Petitioner’s arguments that the C-arm of Watanabe
`
`would be “rotatable,” Patent Owner argues that the combination of Barnea
`
`and Watanabe would not have been operable and a person of ordinary skill
`
`would not have been motivated to combine the ref
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
