throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: December 4, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Summary
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,991,677 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’677 patent”). After the filing of the
`Petition, Ethicon LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a statutory disclaimer of
`claims 11–15 and 18. Ex. 2004; see Paper 8, 11. We instituted trial to
`determine whether: (1) claims 1–10, 16, and 17 were unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
`Claims Challenged
`1–10, 16, 17
`
`References
`Hooven2, Heinrich3
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`1031
`
`
`1 It is not entirely clear what version of § 103 Petitioner argues under. The
`application for the ’677 patent proper was filed on May 21, 2014. Ex. 1001,
`code (22). The earliest effective filing date of the ’677 patent, however,
`based on various chains of continuation and continuation-in-part
`applications, is February 14, 2008. Pet. 3–4; Ex. 1001, code (63). If this
`date is afforded priority, it would make the patent subject to pre-AIA
`§ 103(a). See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) (2015) (applicability of AIA). While
`Petitioner “does not concede that the challenged claims . . . are entitled to
`[the 2008] priority date,” it asserts that its arguments are not affected by this
`difference, since Hooven, Heinrich, Milliman, and Alesi all predate the
`earliest effective filing date. See Pet. 4–5. Petitioner claims entitlement for
`relief under “§ 103,” implying reliance on the post-AIA law (and in light of
`the refusal to concede an earlier priority date), but uses “§ 102(b)” to show
`that Hooven, Heinrich, Milliman, and Alesi qualify as prior art, which
`corresponds better to the pre-AIA version of the law (as current § 102(b)
`deals only with exceptions to the novelty requirement). Id. Neither
`Petitioner nor Patent Owner, however, has pursued this point since.
`Therefore, we use the post-AIA version here.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,383,880 issued Jan. 24, 1995 (Ex. 1004, “Hooven”).
`3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0131390 A1 published June 16, 2005
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`Claims Challenged
`1–5, 16
`1–5, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`
`References
`Hooven, Heinrich, Milliman4
`Hooven, Heinrich, Alesi5
`
`See Paper 9 (Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”). 6
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”).
`Patent Owner also filed a “Corrected Contingent Motion to Amend Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.121.” Paper 18 (“Motion to Amend” or “Mot. to Amend”).7
`Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper 20 (“Pet.
`Reply”). Petitioner also filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Amend. Paper 21 (“Pet. Opp.”). Patent Owner filed a Reply in Support of
`its Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 25 (“PO Reply”). Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper
`26 (“PO Sur-reply”). Petitioner filed a Sur-reply to Patent Owner’s Reply in
`Support of the Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 30 “(Pet. Sur-reply”).
`Oral hearing was conducted on September 5, 2019, and a transcript of the
`hearing is in the record. Paper 33.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden
`of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, “Heinrich”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,361 issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1006, “Milliman”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,779,130 issued July 14, 1998 (Ex. 1010, “Alesi”).
`6 In our Decision on Institution, we treated claims 11-15 and 18 as having
`never been part of the ’677 patent, and concluded that Petitioner could not
`seek inter partes review of those claims. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10.
`7 A listing of proposed substitute claims 19–24 appears in Appendix A of
`Paper 18.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This decision is a Final Written
`Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons discussed below, we
`hold that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1–10, 16, and 17 of the ’677 patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a). We grant Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend to
`substitute claims 19–24 for claims 1–5 and 16 in the ’677 patent.
`
`B. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies itself as the only real party-in-interest. Pet. 1.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’677 patent is involved in: Ethicon LLC
`et al. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-00871 in the United States
`District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Delaware litigation”).8 Pet.
`2; Paper 6, 2. Petitioner is also challenging related patents in the following
`proceedings before the Board: (1) IPR2018-00933 (the ’601 patent); (2)
`IPR2018-00934 (the ’058 patent); (3) IPR2018-01247, IPR2018-01248, and
`IPR2018-01254 (the ’969 patent); (4) IPR2018-00936 (the ’658 patent); (5)
`IPR2018-00938 (the ’874 patent); (6) IPR2018-01703 (the ’431 patent); and
`(7) IPR2019-00880 (U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749).
`
`
`8 Patent Owner contends that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,585,658 B2 (“the ’658
`Patent”), 8,616,431 B2 (“the ’431 Patent”), 8,479,969 B2 (“the ’969
`Patent”), 9,113,874 B2 (“the ’874 Patent”), 9,084,601 B2 (“the ’601
`Patent”), and 8,998,058 B2 (“the ’058 Patent”) are also asserted in the
`Delaware litigation. Paper 6, 2.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`D. The ’677 Patent
`
`The ’677 patent is titled “Detachable Motor Powered Surgical
`Instrument,” and generally relates to endoscopic surgical instruments. Ex.
`1001, code (54), 1:32–33. The ’677 patent summarizes its disclosure as
`encompassing a surgical instrument including “a housing that includes at
`least one engagement member for removably attaching the housing to an
`actuator arrangement.” Id. at code (57). The housing supports a motor that
`“may include a contact arrangement that is configured to permit power to be
`supplied to the motor only when the housing is operably attached to the
`actuator arrangement.” Id. Figure 1 of the ’677 patent is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 shows “a perspective view of a disposable loading unit
`
`embodiment of the present invention coupled to a conventional surgical
`cutting and stapling apparatus.” Id. at 4:21–23. In particular, disposable
`loading unit 16 is coupled to surgical stapling apparatus 10. Id. at 10:54–58.
`Disposable loading unit 16 includes housing portion 200 that is configured
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`to engage elongated body portion 14 of surgical stapling apparatus 10. Id. at
`11:54–61. Figure 2 of the ’677 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 “is a cross-sectional view of the disposable loading unit of
`
`FIG. 1 with several components shown in full view for clarity.” Id. at 4:24–
`26. The ’677 patent describes the following:
`[T]he disposable loading unit 16 may generally comprise a tool
`assembly 17 for performing surgical procedures such as cutting
`tissue and applying staples on each side of the cut. The tool
`assembly 17 may include a cartridge assembly 18 that includes a
`staple cartridge 220 that is supported in a carrier 216. An anvil
`assembly 20 may be pivotally coupled to the carrier 216 in a
`known manner for selective pivotal travel between open and
`closed positions. The anvil assembly 20 includes an anvil
`portion 204 that has a plurality of staple deforming concavities
`(not shown) formed in the undersurface thereof. The staple
`cartridge 220 houses a plurality of pushers or drivers (not shown)
`that each have a staple or staples (not shown) supported thereon.
`An actuation sled 234 is supported within the tool assembly 17
`and is configured to drive the pushers and staples in the staple
`cartridge 220 in a direction toward the anvil assembly 20 as the
`actuation sled 234 is driven from the proximal end of the tool
`assembly 17 to the distal end 220.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`Id. at 11:11–28.
`Figure 3 of the ’677 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 above illustrates a cross-sectional view of the proximal end
`
`of disposable loading unit 16 shown in Figure 1. Id. at 4:27–29. Housing
`portion 200 of the disposable loading unit defines battery cavity 522 that
`movably supports battery holder 524 that houses battery 526. Id. at 11:64–
`66. First battery contact 528 and second battery contact 530 are supported in
`electrical contact with battery 526. Id. at 11:66–12:7. The ’677 patent
`further describes the following:
`As can also be seen in FIG. 3, a biasing member or switch spring
`550 is positioned within the battery cavity 522 to bias the battery
`holder 524 in the proximal direction “PD” such that when the
`disposable reload 16 is not attached to the elongated body 14, the
`battery holder 524 is biased to its proximal-most position shown
`in FIG. 3. When retained in that “pre-use” or “disconnected”
`position by spring 550, the battery contacts 528 and 530 do not
`contact any of the contacts 540, 542, 544 within battery cavity
`522 to prevent the battery 526 from being drained during non-
`use.
`Id. at 12:14–24. Housing 200 also includes motor cavity 560 that houses
`motor 562 and gear box 564. Id. at 11:25–27. Based on the contact
`arrangement of battery contacts 528 and 530 with contacts 540, 542, and
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`544, battery 526 either supplies or prevents power to motor 562. See, e.g.,
`id. at 12:60–14:2.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`
`Challenged claims 1, 6, 16, and 17 are independent. Claims 2–5
`
`ultimately depend from claim 1, and claims 7–10 ultimately depend from
`claim 6. Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative and are reproduced below.
`
`1.
`A disposable loading unit configured for operable
`attachment to a surgical instrument which is configured to
`selectively generate at least one control motion for the operation
`of said disposable loading unit, said disposable loading unit
`comprising:
`
`a carrier operably supporting a cartridge assembly therein;
`
`an anvil supported relative to said carrier and being
`moveable from an open position to closed positions upon
`application of at least one control motion thereto;
`
`a housing coupled to said carrier, said housing including
`means for removably attaching said housing to the surgical
`instrument;
`
`a rotary drive at least partially supported within said
`housing;
`
`a motor supported within said housing and operably
`interfacing with said rotary drive to selectively apply a rotary
`motion thereto, wherein said motor is configured to receive
`power from a power source such that said motor can only
`selectively receive power from said power source when said
`means for removably attaching said housing to the surgical
`instrument is operably coupled to the surgical instrument; and
`
`a linear member coupled with said rotary drive which
`moves axially upon the application of a rotary motion thereto
`from said motor.
`Ex. 1001, 80:40–64.
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`6.
`A stapling sub-system configured to be operably
`engaged with a surgical instrument system, said stapling sub-
`system comprising:
`
`a staple cartridge carrier;
`
`a staple cartridge assembly supported by said staple
`cartridge carrier;
`
`an anvil supported relative to said staple cartridge carrier
`and movable from an open position to a closed position;
`
`a housing wherein said staple cartridge carrier extends
`from said housing, and wherein said housing comprises a
`housing connector removably attachable
`to
`the surgical
`instrument system; and
`
`a rotary drive system, comprising
`
`a rotary shaft;
`
`a translatable drive member operably engaged with said
`rotary shaft, wherein said translatable drive member
`is
`selectively translatable through said staple cartridge assembly
`from a start position to an end position when a rotary motion is
`applied to said rotary shaft; and
`
`an electric motor operably interfacing with said rotary
`shaft to selectively apply said rotary motion to said rotary shaft,
`wherein said electric motor is operably disconnected from a
`power source when said housing is not attached to the surgical
`instrument system, and wherein said electric motor is operably
`connected to the power source when said housing is attached to
`the surgical instrument system.
`Id. at 81:12–41.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The claim construction standard to be employed in an inter partes
`review has changed. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Nov. 13, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt.
`42). That new standard, however, applies only to proceedings in which the
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`petition is filed on or after November 13, 2018. This Petition was filed on
`May 22, 2018. Under the standard in effect at that time, “[a] claim in an
`unexpired patent . . . shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2142 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard). Accordingly, we evaluate patentability in this proceeding using
`the broadest reasonable construction standard. In determining the broadest
`reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their ordinary
`and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee may define a claim term in a manner that
`differs from its ordinary meaning; however, any special definitions must be
`set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that it was only
`necessary to evaluate the meaning of a single phrase appearing in claim 1:
`“means for removably attaching said housing to the surgical instrument.”
`See Dec. on Inst. 10–11. In particular, for purposes of deciding whether to
`institute trial, we observed the following:
`According to Petitioner, that phrase in using the word “means”
`presumptively invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 16 Petitioner
`contends that the claimed function, as recited in the claim, “is
`removably attaching said housing to the surgical instrument.” Id.
`Petitioner further contends that “[t]he corresponding structures
`in the ’677 patent that perform this function include engagement
`nubs 254.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:23–28; Fig. 2; Ex. 1003
`¶¶62–65). Patent Owner does not dispute the above-noted
`function and structure identified by Petitioner. For purposes of
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`this Decision, we accept the parties’ representations in that
`regard.
`Dec. on Inst. 11.
`
`The parties do not challenge the above-noted construction, and both
`parties contend that it is unnecessary to further address it. PO Resp. 15 n.4;
`Pet. Reply 1. We do not discern a reason to alter or further address that
`construction.
`Patent Owner also discusses construction of the following claim
`clauses: (1) “[disposable] loading unit comprising: . . . a motor . . . wherein
`said motor is configured to receive power from a power source such that said
`motor can only selectively receive power from said power source when said
`means for removably attaching said housing to the surgical instrument is
`operably coupled to the surgical instrument” as appears in claims 1 and 16
`(PO Resp. 26–35); and (2) “stapling sub-system comprising: . . . an electric
`motor . . . wherein said electric motor is operably disconnected from a power
`source when said housing is not attached to the surgical instrument system,
`and wherein said electric motor is operably connected to the power source
`when said housing is attached to the surgical instrument system” as appears
`in claims 6 and 17 (id. at 16–26).9 We consider below the meaning of those
`clauses.
`
`1. The Power Limitation
`According to Patent Owner, the power limitation sets forth “two
`separate requirements describing two separate connections.” PO Resp. 28.
`
`
`9 As a matter of convenience, we refer to the first clause generally as “the
`power limitation,” and we refer to the second clause generally as the
`“operably disconnected/connected limitation.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`More specifically, Patent Owner contends the following:
`First, the limitation that the motor is configured to receive power
`from a power source requires that the motor be connected to an
`attached power source. Second, the requirement that the motor
`“only selectively receive[s]” power when the DLU’s housing
`connector is attached to the surgical instrument system requires
`the connection between the motor and the attached power source
`be controlled and that the control mechanism “only” permit[s]
`power to flow when it detects the DLU is attached to the surgical
`instrument that operates the tool.
`Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 73–79).
`
`Patent Owner further distills the requirement of the claims to an
`assertion that the claims “as a whole” indicate “that the motor must be
`configured to receive power independent of whether or not the housing is
`attached to the surgical instrument.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 78).
`Patent Owner generally bases that assertion on disclosure in the ’677 patent:
`(1) related to Figures 3 and 7 that Patent Owner characterizes as an
`embodiment of the claimed invention (id. at 31–32); and (2) related to
`Figure 52 that Patent Owner characterizes as another embodiment (id. at 32–
`33).
`Petitioner does not agree with Patent Owner’s contentions as to the
`
`requirements of the power limitation of claims 1 and 16. Specifically,
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s proposed constructions are: (1)
`“Inconsistent with the Plain Meaning” of the claims (Pet. Reply 2–6);
`(2) “Are Not Supported by the Specification” (id. at 6–9); and (3)
`“Improperly Attempt to Limit the Claims to a Particular Embodiment when
`the Claims and the Specification are Broader than that Particular
`Embodiment” (id. at 9–12).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`We are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s assessment of the power
`limitation is correct. In that regard, it is difficult to reconcile Patent Owner’s
`contention with the actual language of the claims. We observe that the
`claims do not refer to “separate requirements” or “separate connections.”
`Neither do they use the term “independent” in describing any connection of
`components of a disposable loading unit (claim 1) or loading unit (claim 16).
`Claims 1 and 16 recite, in pertinent part, a motor that is configured to
`receive power from a power source such that the motor “only selectively”
`receives power from a power source when the means for removably
`attaching the housing to the surgical instrument is operably coupled to the
`surgical instrument. Patent Owner’s attempt to imbue the claims with a
`“separate” or “independent” aspect of the motor configuration and that of the
`housing attachment or connection mechanism simply lacks adequate
`explanation or assessment of the actual claim language. Furthermore, Patent
`Owner’s recourse to example embodiments appearing in various portions of
`the Specification does not convey credibly that un-recited requirements
`should somehow make their way into the claims under the general rubric
`that the claims “as a whole” require their inclusion.
`In effect, Patent Owner is of the view that the power limitation
`mandates that the claimed motor must always be attached to the power
`source irrespective of whether the housing connector is attached to the
`surgical system. The claims, however, are not so limiting. We share the
`following view expressed by Petitioner:
`In support of its argument that the Board should read in a
`requirement that the claimed motor is “attached” to the power
`source, Ethicon incorrectly argues that the claim describes “two
`separate requirements describing two separate connections.”
`POR, 28. Specifically, Ethicon asserts that the claim language
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`requires (i) “the motor be connected to an attached power
`source,” and (ii) “the connection between the motor and the
`attached power source be controlled and that the control
`mechanism ‘only’ permit power to flow when it detects that the
`DLU is attached to the surgical instrument that operates the tool.”
`Id.
`
`Ethicon’s argument, however, ignores the “such that”
`claim language that links the two allegedly separate limitations,
`and which makes clear that the latter of the two clauses (“said
`motor can only selectively receive power”) defines what the
`former clause (“said motor is configured to receive power”)
`means. IS1030, ¶13. Thus, the two clauses are not separate
`limitations but rather a single limitation requiring no more than
`the motor be set up (i.e., “configured”) to receive power from the
`power source only when the housing and surgical instrument are
`“operably coupled.” Id.
`Pet. Reply 5.
`Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s inadequately explained
`construction of the power limitation of claims 1 and 16 that spans pages 20
`through 35 of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2. The Operably Disconnected/Connected Limitation
`Patent Owner argues that the operably disconnected/connected
`limitation of claims 6 and 17 “requires that the electrical connection of the
`stapling sub-system’s electric motor to an attached power source is
`controlled by, but separate from, the attachment between the stapling sub-
`system housing and the surgical instrument system.” PO Resp. 16–17
`(citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 55). More particularly, Patent Owner is of the view that
`“the stapling sub-system is (a) electrically disconnected (such that it cannot
`operate from the attached power source when the sub-system housing is
`detached from the surgical instrument system; and (2) electrically connected
`to the attached power source when the housing is attached to the surgical
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`instrument system.” Id. at 17.
`In making the above-noted argument, Patent Owner focuses on the
`claim term “operably.” Id. at 17–20. In that respect, Patent Owner advances
`arguments such as: (1) an electric motor that is “operably disconnected” is
`“not merely ‘disconnected’” (id. at 18); (2) “[t]he use of the ‘operably’
`modifier indicates that the electrical connection between the stapling sub-
`system’s electric motor and the power source, but not the physical
`connection, is dependent upon the physical attachment of the sub-system
`housing to the surgical instrument system” (id. at 19 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 47–
`55); and (3) “‘operably disconnected’ refers to an electrical disconnection
`(i.e., functional or operable disconnection) but not a physical one” (id. at 20
`(citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 54)). As with the power limitation discussed above,
`Patent Owner seeks to support its construction of the operably
`disconnected/connected limitation through reference to embodiments of the
`‘677 Patent appearing in Figures 3–7 and 52. Id. at 20–25.
`Here, too, Petitioner challenges Patent Owner’s construction.
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction is “inconsistent with
`the plain meaning of the claim[s]”. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner disputes Patent
`Owner’s argument that the term “operably,” in conjunction with a
`connection or disconnection, is “superfluous” in designating a physical
`connection or disconnection. Id. at 14. Petitioner contends that “the term
`‘operably’ has meaning because it is clearly possible for a motor and a
`power source to be physically connected through the connection between the
`housing of the stapling sub-system and the surgical instrument system in a
`way that is not operable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 21–24; Ex. 1033, 126:13–
`127:8.). Petitioner also submits that
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`the term “operable” makes clear that the motor and the power
`source must be connected, for example, in a way that they
`perform a designated function (i.e., the claimed function of
`“selectively apply[ing] said rotary motion to said rotary shaft”)
`when the housing to the stapling sub-system is attached to the
`surgical instrument system.
`Id. at 14–15.
`Having considered the conflicting positions of the parties, we are not
`persuaded on this record by Patent Owner that “operably connected,” for
`instance, precludes a physical connection between a motor and a power
`source. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. William Cimino,
`meaningfully or adequately explains why the term “operably” sets forth a
`distinction between an electrical connection and a physical one. Simply put,
`Patent Owner does not offer a cogent basis for concluding that a physical
`disconnection between a motor and power source that prevents operation of
`the motor, nevertheless, does not establish those components as “operably
`disconnected.” Likewise, Patent Owner does not articulate adequately why
`a physical connection between a motor and power source, that enables
`operation of the motor, does not render those components “operably
`connected.” Accordingly, we decline to view “operably connected” and
`“operably disconnected” as excluding physical connection and
`disconnection.
`
`3. Remaining Claim Terms
`We determine that it is unnecessary to further discuss any other
`matters of claim construction for any claim term to resolve the issues in
`controversy in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 such subject
`matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 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 skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e.,
`secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).10 “While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`any particular case, the factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fischer, testifies the following in
`connection with the level of ordinary skill in the art:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`claimed invention (“POSITA”) would have had the equivalent of
`a Bachelor’s degree or higher in mechanical engineering,
`electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a related field
`
`
`10 At this stage of the proceeding, neither party has submitted or relied on
`any objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`directed towards medical electro-mechanical systems and at least
`3 years working experience in research and development for
`surgical instruments. Experience could take the place of some
`formal training, as relevant skills may be learned on the job. This
`description is approximate, and a higher level of education might
`make up for less experience, and vice versa.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 27.
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge the above-noted testimony or offer
`any assessment of its own as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. For
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt the Dr. Fischer’s assessment of the level
`of ordinary skill in the art. We further find that the cited prior art references
`reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and
`that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent
`with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by
`Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`D. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`1. Overview of Hooven
`Hooven is titled “Endoscopic Surgical System with Sensing Means.”
`Ex. 1004, code (54). Hooven discloses endoscopic stapling and cutting
`instrument 30 that includes “a sensing means which controls and/or monitors
`the operation of the instrument while conducting the desired step [, e.g.,
`ligating, stapling, cutting, manipulation of the tissue,] in the procedure and
`provides feedback information to the surgeon.” Id. at 2:54–58, 61–63.
`Figure 1 of Hooven is reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a schematic view of an endoscopic surgical system
`of the present invention interconnected with a microprocessor/controller and
`a video display screen. More particularly, Hooven explains the following:
`[E]ndoscopic
`stapling
`and
`cutting
`instrument 30
`is
`interconnected with a controller 31 and a video display monitor
`32. The controller includes a microprocessor, power supply,
`hardwired logic, sensor interface and motor drive circuits. The
`instrument is connected to the controller so that the controller can
`accept, store, manipulate, and present data. The controller may
`feed appropriate signals back to the instrument in order to operate
`the instrument.
`Id. at 4:15–24; see also id. at 9:15–17. Hooven discloses that “[a]ll sensors,
`switches, and motors are connected to the controller via the interface cable
`205. This information, fed into the appropriate controller, is stored and
`manipulated and fed to a central processing communication system.” Id. at
`9:1–5. Figure 6 of Hooven is reproduced below.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts an enlarged longitudinal cross-sectional view of the
`active or business head of endoscopic stapling and cutting instrument 30.
`Hooven discloses that its “head includes a staple or staple cartridge portion
`74 and an anvil portion 75. The staple portion and the anvil portion are
`pivotally connected [t]o each other by the anvil pivot pin 76.” Id. at 5:38–
`41. Hooven further discloses a knife member 82 and driving wedge member
`83 which are interconnected. Id. at 6:9–19.
`
`2. Overview of Heinrich
`Heinrich is titled “Surgical Instruments Including MEMS devices.”
`Ex. 1005, code (54). Heinrich’s Abstract reads as follows:
`Surgical instruments are disclosed that are couplable to or
`have an end effector or a disposable loading unit with an end
`effector, and at least one micro-electromechanical system
`(MEMS) device operatively connected to the surgical instrument
`for at least one of sensing a condition, measuring a parameter and
`controlling the condition and/or parameter.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00935
`Patent 8,991,677 B2
`Id. at code (57). Figure 1 of Heinrich is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a perspective view of a surgical stapling instrument
`
`according to Heinrich’s disclosure. Id. ¶

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