U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`LUMENIS LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`BTL HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES A.S.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01279
`Patent No. 10,709,895
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel .................................................................. 4 
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 4 
`III. 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge ................................................................... 5 
`1. 
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based .................. 5 
`a. 
`§§314(a) and 325(d) are inapplicable ........................................ 5 
`2. 
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is based ................ 6 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`’895 Patent ............................................................................................ 6 
`B. 
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 9 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 9 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10 
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 10 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-13 are rendered obvious by Simon .................... 10 
`1. 
`Simon Overview ...................................................................... 10 
`2. 
`Claim Charts ............................................................................ 15 
`a. 
`Independent Claims 1, 6 .......................................................... 15 
`b. 
`Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-13 .................................................... 32 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-13 are rendered obvious by Burnett ’870 in
`view of Magstim ................................................................................. 40 
`1. 
`Burnett-’870 Overview ............................................................ 40 
`2.  Magstim Overview ................................................................... 42 
`3.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................ 46 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4. 
`Claim Charts ............................................................................ 48 
`Independent Claims 1, 6 .......................................................... 48 
`a. 
`Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-13 .................................................... 67 
`b. 
`A.  Ground 3: Claims 1-13 are rendered obvious by Simon in view
`of Burnett ’870 ................................................................................... 73 
`IX.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 77 
`X. 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`(Ex-)
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895 (“’895”)
`Declaration of Dr. Marom Bikson (“Bikson”)
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 16/567,866, which led to
`the issuance of the ’895 (excerpts) (the “’866 Application”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0165226 (“Simon”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0148870 (“Burnett-
`’870”)
`
`Chris Hovey et al., The Guide To Magnetic Stimulation, Magstim,
`July 21, 2006, Affidavit (“Magstim”)1
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20050216062 (“Herbst”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,396,326 (“Ghiron”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,675,819 (“Li”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0277219A1 (“Nanda”)
`
`Alain-Yvan Belanger, Therapeutic Electrophysical Agents, 3d
`Edition, Wolters Kluwer (2015), Declaration (“Belanger”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0245483 (“Lundqvist”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0168501 from
`Application No. 12/508,529 (“Burnett-’529”)
`
`Gorgey et al., Effects of Electrical Stimulation Parameters on
`Fatigue in Skeletal Muscle, J. Orthop. & Sports Phys. Therapy Vol.
`39: 9 (2009) (“Gorgey”)
`
`1015
`
`Stevens et al., Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Quadriceps
`Muscle Strengthening After Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: A
`
`1 All pinpoint citations to Magstim, throughout this document and the
`corresponding expert declaration, refer to the page number originally in Magstim
`itself (i.e., in the bottom middle portion of Magstim).
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`(Ex-)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`Case Series, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy,
`34(1):21-29 (2004) (“Stevens”)
`
`Doucet et al., Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Skeletal
`Muscle Function, Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine 85:201-215
`(2012) (“Doucet”)
`
`Abulhasan et al., Peripheral Electrical and Magnetic Stimulation to
`Augment Resistance Training, Journal of Functional Morphology and
`Kinesiology, 1(3):328-342 (2016) (“Abulhasan”)
`
`Remed, Salus Talent Brochure (2010) (“Salus”)
`
`Iskra Medical, TESLA Stym Website (2013) (“TESLA Stym”)
`
`510(k) Summary, No. K163165, AM-100 (2017) (“AM-100”)
`
`510(k) Summary, No. K160992, HPM-6000 (2016) (“HPM-6000”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0158585 (“Burnett ʼ585”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/848,720 (“Burnett-
`Provisional-’720”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,185 (“Burnett-’185”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0306325 (“Burnett-ʼ325”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,966 ( “Parker”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,384 (“Ostrow”)
`
`Andrey Gennadievich Belyaev, Effect of Magnetic Stimulation on the
`Strength Capacity of Skeletal Muscle (2015) (Ph.D. dissertation,
`Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher
`Professional Education “Velikiye Luki State Academy of Physical
`Culture and Sport”) (English translation) (“Belyaev”)
`
`1029
`
`Andrey Gennadievich Belyaev, Effect of Magnetic Stimulation on the
`Strength Capacity of Skeletal Muscle (2015) (Ph.D. dissertation,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`(Ex-)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher
`Professional Education “Velikiye Luki State Academy of Physical
`Culture and Sport”) (Russian)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,024,239 (“George”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,181,902 (“Erickson”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0199992 (“Eisenberg”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,718,662 (“Jalinous”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,061,234 (“Chaney”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,271,900 (“Marchitto”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0184601 (“Gleich”)
`
`Judith Woehrle et al., Dry Needling and its Use in Health Care – A
`Treatment Modality and Adjunct for Pain Management, J. Pain &
`Relief, 4(5):1-3 (2015) (“Woehrle”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0157873 (“Sokolowski”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,744,523 (“Epstein”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,738,667 (“Deno”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,871,099 (“Whitehurst”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20050075701 (“Shafer-
`’701”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20050075702 (“Shafer-
`’702”)
`
`D. Suarez-Bagnasco et al., The Excitation Functional for Magnetic
`Stimulation of Fibers, 32nd Ann. Int’l Conf. of the IEEE EMBS,
`4829–33 (2010) (“Suarez-Bagnasco”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`(Ex-)
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`Zhi-De Deng et al., Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in
`transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil
`designs, Brain Stimulation, 6(1):1-13 (2013) (“Zhi-De-Deng-
`Electric”)
`
`Zhi-De Deng, Electromagnetic Field Modeling of Transcranial
`Electric and Magnetic Stimulation: Targeting, Individualization, and
`Safety of Convulsive and Subconvulsive Applications, (2013) (Ph.D.
`dissertation, Columbia University) (“Zhi-De-Deng-
`Electromagnetic”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0190569 (“Simon-
`ʼ569”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0152967 (“Simon-
`ʼ967”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0125203 (“Simon-
`ʼ203”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0046432 (“Simon-
`ʼ432”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,089,719 (“Simon-ʼ719”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,247 (“Simon-ʼ247”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,868,177 (“Simon-ʼ177”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/859,568 (excerpts)
`(“File-history-ʼ568”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/964,050 (excerpts)
`(“File-history-ʼ050”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/005,005 (excerpts)
`(“File-history-ʼ005”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`(Ex-)
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/024,727 (excerpts)
`(“File-history-ʼ727”)
`
`Allergan, Inc. et al v. BTL Medical Technologies SRO et al,
`PGR2021-00017, Paper 16 (Institution Denial Decision on §112(f))
`(“PGR2021-00017-ID”)
`
`Allergan, Inc. et al v. BTL Medical Technologies SRO et al,
`PGR2021-00020 (PTAB, Filed Dec. 14, 2020), Paper 16 (Institution
`Denial Decision on §112(f)) (“PGR2021-00020-ID”)
`
`1060
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Bradford
`
`vii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Lumenis Ltd. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests IPR of Claims 1-13
`
`(“Claims”) of U.S. 10,709,895 (“’895”) pursuant to §§311-319 and §42.100.
`
`ʼ895 is directed to electrical stimulation of body tissues using magnetic field.
`
`ʼ895, 1:66–2:7. Its exemplary device includes two applicators placed on a
`
`patient’s body causing tissues to contract, thereby “toning’ them. ’895, 7:18–25,
`
`28:2-7. Figure 12 (annotated) shows each applicator has a circuit that contains a
`
`capacitor to discharge energy to a magnetic field generating coil. ʼ895, 19:41–
`
`20:16. Bikson, ¶¶92-99.
`
`ʼ895 explains that “magnetic methods” were already in use. ʼ895, 2:45–48.
`
`Its purported novelty is to combine technologies of “magnetic field with
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`radiofrequency, light, mechanical or pressure source.” ʼ895, 1:66–2:7, 3:10–13.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`However, all Claims are directed to merely using magnetic fields for toning
`
`muscles. Bikson, ¶¶92-99, 37-38.
`
`Although the Claims are lengthy, reciting parameters and components, these
`
`elements are conventional features well known in the art. Bikson, ¶¶37-91. Simon
`
`discloses a magnetic device with two applicators for stimulating muscles during
`
`rehabilitation. Simon, Abstract, [0053]-[0054], [0197]. Bikson, ¶¶104-114, 253.
`
`Burnett-’870 discloses a device with multiple applicators comprising coils to
`
`generate magnetic field to stimulate muscle. Burnett-’870, Abstract, Fig. 9B,
`
`[0114]. Bikson, ¶¶254-265. Magstim discloses fundamentals of magnetic field,
`
`including the parameters and components recited in the Claims. Magstim, 1, 3-4.
`
`Bikson, ¶¶266-272, 442.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Lumenis Ltd. is the real party-in-interest. No other party had access to or
`
`control over the present Petition, and no other party funded or participated in
`
`preparation of the present Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another petition (IPR2021-01284)
`
`challenging claims 14-29 of the ’895 patent. Due to word count constraints and the
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`large number of claims, requiring 12,838 words in IPR2021-01279 and 13,991
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`words in IPR2021-01284, claims 1-13 are presented separately herein. See PTAB
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019, 59-61 (permitting parallel
`
`petitions in certain circumstances, such as a large number of claims).
`
`The ’895 patent is not the subject of any other co-pending litigation.
`
`However, the ’895 patent was the subject of the following litigations that were
`
`stayed or resolved and did not involve or relate to the Petitioner:
`
` Certain Non-Invasive Aesthetic Body Contouring Devices, Components
`Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1219 (ITC,
`Filed Aug. 5, 2020) (the “ITC Case”) (settled);
` BTL Industries, Inc. v. Allergan Ltd. et al, No. 1-20-cv-01046 (D. Del., Filed
`Aug. 5, 2020) (stayed) (settled);
` Allergan, Inc. et al v. BTL Medical Technologies SRO et al, PGR2021-
`00015 (PTAB, Filed Dec. 14, 2020) (“Allergan’s PGR”) (PGR was based on
`§112 grounds and §103 grounds primarily based on on-sale bar and public
`use of a device; Institution denied based on Fintiv factors);
` Allergan, Inc. et al v. BTL Medical Technologies SRO et al, PGR2021-
`00016 (PTAB, Filed Dec. 14, 2020) (“Allergan’s PGR”) (PGR was based on
`a different set of §103 grounds than those presented in this Petition;
`Institution denied based on Fintiv factors).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`Backup Counsel
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`Reg. No. 57,325 (Back-up)
`Keyna Chow
`Pro Hac Vice (Back-up)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: 650-617-4000
`Fax: 617-235-9492
`James.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`Keyna.Chow@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents to the email addresses
`
`of the counsel identified above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by
`
`§42.15(a) for this Petition for review to Deposit Account No. 18-1945, under Order
`
`No. 116610-0002-653. Any additional fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies the ’895 is available for IPR.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the Claims on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the grounds herein.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenge
`Pursuant to §§42.104(b), Petitioner requests IPR of the Claims and that the
`
`Board cancel the same as unpatentable.2
`
`1.
`
`Name
`
`Simon
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based
`Exhibit
`Filed
`Published/
`Prior art
`Issued
`under at least
`6/18/2015
`§102(a)(1)-(2)
`
`3/3/2015
`
`1004
`
`Burnett-’870 1005
`
`11/20/2013
`
`5/29/2014
`
`§102(a)(1)-(2)
`
`Magstim
`
`1006
`
`--
`
`7/21/2006
`
`§102(a)(1)
`
`a.
`§§314(a) and 325(d) are inapplicable
`Simon and Magstim3 were not before Examiner; Burnett-’870 was cited in
`
`an IDS among hundreds of references, but not otherwise identified or applied to
`
`reject claims during prosecution. The Examiner never considered the testimony of
`
`Dr. Bikson (Ex-1002) regarding these documents. Ex-1003.
`
`Although the ’895 was previously litigated in the ITC, Petitioner had no
`
`
`2 The art predates ’895’s earliest alleged priority date; Petitioner takes no position
`as to the priority claims.
`3 Although Magstim (not previously cited or considered) and the operating
`manuals (cited but not applied to reject claims) were from the same company, the
`respective disclosures are substantially different—Magstim is a guide that teaches
`stimulation principles, techniques, and applications claimed in ’895, while the
`manuals describe product operations.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`involvement or input to those proceedings, nor any relationship to any party
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`challenging the patent therein. Invalidity of the ’895 was not decided in the ITC
`
`before the matter was settled. This petition presents unique grounds not in
`
`Allergan’s PGR2021-00016—neither Simon nor Burnett-’870 was asserted; and
`
`Magstim is not applied the same way as in any prior ground,4 which prevent
`
`application of §§314(a) and 325(d) denial.
`
`2.
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is based
`Ground Statute Claim(s)
`Prior Art
`1
`§103
`1-13
`Simon
`
`2
`
`3
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`1-13
`
`1-13
`
`Burnett-’870 in view of Magstim
`
`Simon in view of Burnett-ʼ870
`
`See §VIII.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A.
`’895 Patent
`ʼ895 is directed to producing a time-varying magnetic field to remodel or
`
`improve muscles. ʼ895, 3:26–29, 3:40–41, 3:48–48–51. ʼ895 describes a device
`
`
`4 The Board denied Allergan’s PGR based on Fintiv Factors. Moreover, Burnett-
`’870 is a patent publication that came ten years after US2003/0158585 (“Burnett
`’585”) relied upon in the PGR. Magstim served as a primary reference in the PGR
`for disclosing two applicators; in contrast, Magstim is asserted here as a secondary
`reference for disclosing basic magnetic field parameters and applications.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`with applicators, positionable on target body regions using an “adjustable belt.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ʼ895, 12:39–41; 19:17–19, Figs. 15-16. Bikson ¶¶92-93.
`
`
`
`
`
`The device has a “control unit” to regulate magnetic field parameters, and
`
`uses a “casing” with a “cooling media” for the applicators. ʼ895, 3:35–37, 11:7–
`
`11, 13:60–62, 16:6–10. Its circuits have energy storage devices (i.e., capacitors),
`
`discharging energy to coils, as shown in Figure 12 (annotated). ʼ895, 20:7–10.
`
`Bikson ¶¶94-95.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The coils generate “impulses” (i.e., “magnetic stimulus”), causing muscle
`
`contractions. ʼ895, 7:18–20; 13:57–59; 15:14-16. Figure 8 illustrate the impulses
`
`are biphasic and sinusoidal:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`ʼ895, Fig. 8, 7:18–20, 104:31-34. A “pulse” is defined by the period of treatment
`
`between the beginning of a first impulse and the beginning of a second impulse.
`
`ʼ895, 7:22–25. Bikson, ¶¶96-99.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`’895 issued from U.S. Application No. 16/567,866, filed on September 11,
`
`2019. Ex-1003 at 1–137. Track 1, prioritized status was granted. Ex-1003, 142–
`
`143. No substantive, prior-art based rejections were issued and the claims were
`
`allowed on May 18, 2020. Ex-1003, 286–287. Bikson, ¶¶100-101.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`On or before 5/10/2016, a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or related field, and two or
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`more years of professional experience working with the design, development,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and/or use of devices that apply electromagnetic energy to stimulate biological
`
`tissue. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience,
`
`or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Bikson,
`
`¶¶1-36.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms subject to IPR are to be construed according to the Phillips
`
`standard applied in district court. §42.100(b). Petitioner applies the plain and
`
`ordinary meanings of terms. Only terms necessary to resolve the controversy must
`
`be construed. Nidec Motor v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 868 F.3d 1013,
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Bikson, ¶¶102-103. Pursuant to §42.104(b)(3), regarding
`
`the term “control unit,” the Board has denied institution on Allergan’s PGRs of
`
`related patents (sharing the substantially same specification) determining that the
`
`term is not indefinite and does not invoke §112(f). PGR2021-00017-ID, 10-16;
`
`PGR2021-00020-ID, 10-16.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-13 are rendered obvious by Simon
`1.
`Simon Overview
`Simon discloses a magnetic stimulator for muscle “[r]ehabilitation.” Simon,
`
`Title, [0002], [0197].
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Simon, Fig. 5, [0103]. Figures 3A-3D (annotated) show Simon’s stimulator with
`
`two applicators situated within a “housing,” each applicator containing a “coil”
`
`that generates a time-varying magnetic field when a capacitor is “discharged.”
`
`Simon, [0012], [0045], [0047], [0098]. Bikson, ¶¶104-106.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Each coil “induces an electromagnetic field” to apply “electrical impulses”
`
`to muscles within target body regions (e.g., abdomen). Simon, [0024], [0027]-
`
`[0028], [0035], [0053]. Simon’s stimulator may contain more than two
`
`applicators, with varying shapes and configurations for different applications
`
`based on the “anatomical location of the stimulation and determining the
`
`appropriate pulse configuration.” Simon, [0031], [0100]-[0102], Fig. 4C-4D.
`
`Bikson, ¶107.
`
`Simon’s device has an “impulse generator,” containing a capacitor and
`
`connected to a “control unit” causing the impulse generator to generate a signal for
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`each coil. Simon, [0019], [0057], Fig. 1. The control unit controls the capacitor
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`via switching. Simon, [0019]. The impulse generator may contain a “bank of
`
`capacitors” discharged to coils at different times such that multiple, and serial
`
`pulses may be generated. Simon, [0019], [0063]. Bikson, ¶108.
`
`Simon’s coils generate consecutive “energy impulses” to stimulate tissue:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Simon, Fig. 2, [0002], [0029], [0035]. Simon teaches adjustable parameters for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the stimulation signal including frequency, pulse amplitude, and repetition rate.
`
`Simon, [0059], [0063]-[0064], [0104]. Bikson, ¶¶109-110.
`
`Simon aims to “significantly less[en] pain or discomfort” during treatment.
`
`Simon, [0016], [0123]. Applied current may be “increased gradually, first to a
`
`level wherein the patient feels sensation,” then “set to a level.” Simon, [0123].
`
`Simon recognizes magnetic stimulator coils “overheat” during “extended” use, so
`
`it discloses solutions such as “cool[ing] the coils” with flowing water, air, or
`
`“ferrofluids.” Simon, [0020]. Bikson, ¶¶111-112.
`
`To the extent argued Simon lacks explicit disclosure of independently-
`
`positioned applicators in its preferred embodiment, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to modify Simon to use independently-positioned applicators, e.g.,
`
`detached applicators because Simon teaches applicators with varying shapes and
`
`configurations for different applications, e.g., based on the “anatomical location of
`
`the stimulation and determining the appropriate pulse configuration.” Simon,
`
`[0031], [0100]-[0102] (“general” “geometrical configuration”; device design is
`
`shaped by “anatomical location of the stimulation”); Fig. 4C-4D. Simon leaves the
`
`exact configuration of the applicators to a POSITA, who would have been
`
`motivated to have detached, independently-positioned applicators for muscle
`
`“rehabilitation” on muscle groups such as the “abdomen.” Simon, [0035], [0197].
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Such a routine change in configuration of applicators would predictably work and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`provide the expected functionality. Bikson, ¶¶113, 69-71.
`
`Moreover, to the extent argued Simon lacks disclosure of coil inner radius
`
`ranging 7-40% of outer radius, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify
`
`Simon using those core dimensions because Simon discloses coils with “different
`
`diameter[s]…for different applications,” including for “desired coil inductance” or
`
`to “var[y]” the electric field by changing radius and thickness of the core. Simon,
`
`[0068], [0074], [0099]-[0101]. Such a routine change in coil configuration would
`
`predictably work and provide the expected functionality. Bikson, ¶¶114, 53.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Charts
`a.
`Independent Claims 1, 6
`Claim Language
`Simon
`[1.pre]5
`Simon discloses a method for toning a body region of a
`patient by applying a treatment using a treatment device
`which generates a time-varying magnetic field.
`Simon discloses “[m]agnetic stimulation devices and
`methods of therapy” for muscle “rehabilitation,” which a
`POSITA would have recognized as muscle toning. Simon,
`title, Abstract, [0197]; AM-100, 3, 5 (device for “muscle
`toning”); HPM-6000, 3 (same device used for
`“muscle...rehabilitative purposes”); Bikson ¶¶61-67.
`Simon discloses an “apparatus” that induces a “time-varying
`magnetic field” to apply “energy” to a target region within a
`“patient.” Simon, Abstract, [0015], [0023]-[0024], [0053].
`The apparatus are placed, e.g., “on or near a patient’s neck,
`
`5 To the extent the preambles are limiting, they are met by the art of record. See
`also Bikson, §VII-VIII for claim mapping.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`[1.a]
`
`[1.b]
`
`[1.c]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`ankle, and abdomen” in order to produce an “intended
`beneficial physiological effect.” Simon, [0035]-[0036].
`Bikson, ¶¶115-117, 39-67.
`Simon discloses coupling a first applicator and a second
`applicator of the treatment device to the body region of
`the patient by a belt (e.g., “strap, harnesses”).
`Simon discloses fixing a stimulator having two applicators to
`a body region (e.g., “abdomen”) with “[s]traps, harnesses, or
`frames,” i.e., a belt, to “maintain the stimulator in position.”
`Simon, [0147], [0154], [0168], [0182]. For example, Simon
`discloses “using a strap” to hold stimulator coils “against the
`patient.” Simon, [0194]. Bikson, ¶¶118-119, 69-75.
`
`Simon discloses the body region comprises an abdomen.
`Simon discloses the stimulator “positioned…on or near a
`patient's…abdomen…” and cites prior art
`“abdomen” treatment. Simon, [0035], [0105], [0175].
`Bikson, ¶¶120-121, 39-67.
`
`Simon discloses the first applicator has a first magnetic
`field (e.g., “first… time-varying magnetic field[]”)
`generating coil (e.g., “first coil”) disposed in the first
`applicator (e.g., first applicator of “stimulator 30”) and the
`second applicator (e.g., second applicator of “stimulator
`30”) has a second magnetic field (e.g., “second time-
`varying magnetic field[]”) generating coil (e.g., “second
`coil”) disposed in the second applicator.
`Simon discloses a “stimulator 30” containing applicators
`and connected to “circuit control box 38”:
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`
`
`
`Simon, Fig. 5 (annotated); [0103].
`The stimulator may have two applicators “that lie side-by-
`side,” each containing a “coil[]” disposed in “its own
`housing”:
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`
`[1.d]
`
`
`
`Simon, Fig. 3A-D (annotated), [0031], [0098].
`Simon is not limited to two applicators; the shapes and
`configurations may vary based on, e.g., “anatomical location
`of the stimulation.” Simon, [0031], [0100]-[0102], Fig. 4C-
`4D. Bikson ¶¶122-125, 69-71.
`
`Simon discloses the first magnetic field generating coil
`(e.g., “first coil”) has a first inductance and the second
`magnetic field generating coil (e.g., “second coil”) has a
`second inductance, wherein the first inductance is equal
`to the second inductance.
`See [1.c]—Figures 3-4 of Simon depict same-sized
`applicators with same-sized coils and the same
`configurations such that the inductances generated by the
`two coils would be equal. Simon leaves it to a POSITA to
`choose the “desired coil inductance.” Simon, [0099], [0015].
`A POSITA would have understood, as was known, that coils
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`[1.e]
`
`[1.f]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`with the same properties have the same inductance. See,
`e.g., Magstim, Table 1.
`To the extent argued that Simon does not disclose this, a
`POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to
`operate Simon with equal-inductance coils to
`advantageously cause both sides of the body to undergo
`similar treatments such that both sides have the same visual
`appearance after treatment. Bikson, ¶¶126-128, 53, 91.
`Simon teaches the first applicator and the second
`applicator are independently positionable, and
`independently coupled to the body region of the patient
`by the belt (e.g., “strap, harnesses”).
`See [1.a], [1.c]—Simon discloses that it was known in the
`prior art to have independently positioned applicators, such
`as a “negative electrode” placed “on the ulnar edge of the
`forearm” and a “positive electrode…placed on the abdomen”
`including for “rehabilitation.” Simon, [0175], [0197].
`Moreover, a POSITA would have understood and found it
`obvious that Simon’s applicators may be independently
`positioned—See § VIII.A.1. Moreover, it was known in the
`art to position applicators independently, e.g., using a belt.
`See, e.g., Belanger, Fig. 13-16, 241-42, 246; Burnett-’870,
`[0087], [0114], [0209]. Bikson ¶¶129-133, 69-75.
`Simon discloses charging a first capacitor (e.g.,
`“capacitor”) and a second capacitor (e.g., “capacitor”) of
`the treatment device.
`Simon discloses a device with “an impulse generator”
`coupled to a “power source” and “control unit”:
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`
`[1.g]
`
`
`
`Simon, Fig. 1, [0054].
`The “impulse generator” contains “a capacitor,” which stores
`energy when “[charged]…under the control of a control
`unit.” Simon, [0019].
`Simon discloses using “a bank of capacitors,” i.e., charging
`multiple energy storage devices for “[g]reater flexibility”
`such that they are discharged “at different times” or
`“sequentially” to generate multiple, and serial pulses as
`demanded for varying treatment options. Simon, [0019],
`[0063].
`
`Bikson, ¶¶134-138, 76-77.
`Simon discloses discharging the first capacitor (e.g.,
`“capacitor”) to the first magnetic field generating coil
`(e.g., “first coil”) to generate a first time-varying magnetic
`field (e.g., “first… time-varying magnetic field[]”) having a
`magnetic flux density in a range of 0.5 Tesla to 7 Tesla,
`an impulse duration in a range of 3 μs to 1 ms, and a
`maximal value of a magnetic flux density derivative in a
`range of 0.5 kT/s to 400 kT/s.
`See [1.f]—Simon discloses charging multiple capacitors
`including in a “bank of capacitors”—each is “discharged
`through the coil.” Simon, [0019]. A “capacitor, after being
`“[charged]…under the control of a control unit” is
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`[1.h]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Simon
`“discharged” through each coil when a user wishes to “apply
`[a] stimulus.” Simon, [0019], [0025].
`Simon’s “apparatus” induces a “time-varying magnetic
`field” to apply “energy” to a target region within a “patient.”
`Simon, Abstract, [0015], [0023]-[0024], [0053]. The
`apparatus is placed, e.g., “on or near a patient’s neck, ankle,
`and abdomen” in order to produce an “intended beneficial
`physiological effect.” Simon, [0035]-[0036].
`Simon discloses that “current passing through the coil
`produces a magnetic field within the core of abo