`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 124
`Entered: February10, 2014
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`ILLUMINA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`V.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF
`NEW YORK
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`_________
`
`Oral Hearing Held December 17, 2013
`_________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
`DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`On Behalf of Petitioner:
`
`Jeffrey N. Costakos
`FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
`
`
`Robert Lawler
`REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
`
`Marcus Burch
`Roland Schwillinski
`ILLUMINA, INC.
`
`On Behalf of Patent Owner:
`
`Jon White
`COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
`
`Anthony Zupcic
`Robert Schwartz
`Donald Curry
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE LANE: Let's go on the record, please.
`
`We're here today in three related IPRs. The parties are the Petitioner, Micron
`
`Technology Inc., the Patent Owner, the Board of Trustees of the -- I'm sorry. Sorry.
`
`Wrong one. Let me try that again.
`
`The parties are the Petitioner, Illumina, Inc.; and the Patent Owner, the
`
`Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. The IPR numbers are
`
`2012-00006, 2012-00007, and IPR 2013-00011.
`
`What we'll do is start out and have the Petitioner, Illumina, introduce
`
`yourself and who you brought with you.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Jeff Costakos, of Foley
`
`& Lardner, representing Illumina. With me today is Robert Lawler from the
`
`Reinhart firm and Marcus Burch is also at counsel table. And behind me is Roland
`
`Schwillinski, also with Illumina.
`
`JUDGE LANE: Welcome.
`
`And who is for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. WHITE: John White.
`
`JUDGE LANE: Mr. White.
`
`MR. WHITE: John White, Your Honor. I'm here for the Patent Owner,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`Columbia University.
`
`With me is Anthony Zupcic from the Fitzpatrick firm, who is the back-up
`
`counsel in the case; and Robert Schwartz from the Fitzpatrick firm; and Donald
`
`Curry who is from the Fitzpatrick firm. And he will be participating this morning
`
`on the one part about the objective indicia in our presentation.
`
`JUDGE LANE: Okay. Welcome.
`
`All right. So each side will have an hour to present your arguments. We'll
`
`begin with the Petitioner.
`
`The Petitioner and Patent Owner as well may reserve time for rebuttal.
`
`When you get up, let me know how much of your one hour you would like to
`
`reserve for rebuttal. So, we'll go Petitioner, Patent Owner, Petitioner, Patent
`
`Owner, in that order.
`
`Would you like to go ahead and get started?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve 20 minutes for
`
`rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE LANE: 20 minutes? Okay.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`May it please the Board, as I indicated, my name is Jeff Costakos, and I
`
`represent Illumina.
`
`The claims at issue in this IPR are all invalid, and I think this first slide,
`
`which is for the record slide number 2.
`
`JUDGE LANE: I'm sorry. Did you bring copies of your demo?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Oh, yes, I did.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
` (Whereupon, there was a pause in the proceedings.)
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: As I indicated, this slide, which, for the record, is slide
`
`number 2 of our invalidity demonstrative, I think it does a good job of illustrating
`
`exactly why the Columbia claims that are at issue in this lawsuit are invalid.
`
`The original independent claims of the Ju patents and the Columbia patents
`
`are claims, for the most part, a method of doing DNA sequencing where a label
`
`was attached to the base, a cleavable label is in most instances in the claim, and
`
`where a capping group was at the 3'-OH position, removable capping group.
`
`As the Board previously found, and as shown in this slide, the Tsien
`
`reference actually shows each one of those limitations that were in the independent
`
`claims. As we'll talk about in a few moments, Tsien shows examples where it has
`
`a label attached to the base, cleavable labels specifically, and where there is a
`
`removable cap improvement at the 3'-OH position. And it does it for the DNA
`
`sequencing purposes.
`
`So as the Board found in its order initiating the trial, the Tsien reference
`
`discloses each and every element of the independent -- original independent claims
`
`of the Columbia patents.
`
`And I think the correctness of the Board's original decision was shown by
`
`the fact that Columbia cancelled all of its original independent claims and has
`
`really made no attempt in this IPR to defend the validity of those independent
`
`claims.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So you're only -- will be addressing the claims as a
`
`mass -- you are only addressing the claims as amended?
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, we did address sort of the -- because they're a
`
`subset of the broader claims, we addressed every element of the claims, which
`
`would include in instances where there was a dependent claim written over an
`
`independent form. Naturally, we addressed every element. But I will be
`
`addressing the claims that are still at issue in this litigation.
`
`It is our position, and I think their pleadings have been clear, that they
`
`cancelled the original independent claims. It was not a contingent cancellation.
`
`Instead what they did was they proposed substitute claims. So that's what the focus
`
`has been since their motion to amend was filed, and that's what I'm going to focus
`
`my comments on here today.
`
`JUDGE LANE: Now, why is the motion to amend not contingent?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, because for one thing, it didn't say that it was
`
`contingent. And the Idle Free decision makes it clear, I think on page 10 of that
`
`decision, that it needs to make an expressed claim of what is contingent and what's
`
`not contingent and express what the contingency is. So they didn't express any
`
`contingency. And I think a substantive point of view, they made no attempt, after
`
`the motion to amend was filed, to defend the validity of those cancelled
`
`independent claims.
`
`So it's not as though there was just a procedural failure where they forgot to
`
`say it's contingent. As a matter of fact, after that motion to amend was filed, they
`
`didn't say, "Oh, by the way, these original independent claims are still valid for
`
`these reasons." They just didn't do that. They only addressed the amended claims
`
`after their motion to amend was filed.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`JUDGE LANE: So then we will still have to make a determination that their
`
`original claims are unpatentable?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: That's right. And I think we did carry that burden in our
`
`legal position and as I mentioned by virtue of explaining the invalidity of the
`
`amended claims, we also showed that the independent claims -- the original
`
`independent claims were also invalid. I think by virtue of their failure to defend
`
`those claims and the evidence that we put in the record, it's indisputable that the
`
`original independent claims should be invalid in this.
`
`So, as I was saying, what Columbia did was instead to amend its claims.
`
`And what it did, for the most part, was to amend the claims all to add the
`
`limitations where instead of the label being attached just to the base, the label was
`
`attached to a base that was a Deaza Purine.
`
`Unfortunately, however, this is also shown in the prior art. And, in fact, in
`
`our original petition, we demonstrated the invalidity of just this very amendment,
`
`because Tsien points to Prober, which expressly discloses the use of a deaza purine
`
`as the label attachment.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: I think in that case, I think it was pointed out by
`
`Columbia at some point that Prober talked about the deaza being on a dideoxy, so
`
`where the 3' was blocked, is that correct?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: It was a dideoxy certainly in Prober, that's right. But
`
`Tsien said you can use the nucleotides that are in Prober and Tsien specifically
`
`shows in it -- in a pyrimidine form. Make sure I point that out. But Tsien shows
`
`when it incorporates the analogues from Prober, it shows them in a deoxyuridine
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`type form not of dideoxyuridine.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Where does Tsien show that?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: On page 30. It has some examples where it shows the
`
`molecules that it said would be formed by what's in the Prober. And those are
`
`deoxy nucleotides, not dideoxyuridine.
`
`So Prober specifically says use a 7-deaza purine as your attachment when
`
`you're doing purines. And that's the only kind of purine attachment that Prober
`
`discloses. It discloses attachment at a 5 position of a pyrimidine and the 7 position
`
`of a deazapurine.
`
`But Columbia's pleadings sort of talk as though time stops in 1991 when
`
`Tsien was published. When, in fact, as we've demonstrated in our papers and as
`
`this slide shows, there was an evolution of the technology and a solidification, I
`
`think, of the notion that it would have been obvious to attach the label not just to
`
`the base but to the deaza, to a deazapurine.
`
`And in particular, the -- I should also say, I think this is an important point.
`
`Prober not only says attached a 7-deaza position, but Prober also says why. Prober
`
`says it's advantageous, because it has a stable linker arm attachment. So it wasn't
`
`as though this was just some random attachment point, Prober actually explains the
`
`reasoning behind it. And what happened then after the Tsien patent was published
`
`in 1991, is that the technology that's in the Prober article -- this is technology that
`
`was described by Prober and Columbia's expert Trainor and a doctor by the name
`
`of Hobbs as well. That was commercialized by Applied Bio-Systems. Applied
`
`Bio-Systems became the dominant player in the DNA sequencing market during
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`the '90s for signer sequencing. It was their sequencing technology and this type of
`
`sequencing technology that was used in the human genome project during the
`
`1990s. And by the end of the 1990s, this particular type of sequencing using labels
`
`that were attached to the 7-deaza position was the dominant form of attachment for
`
`DNA sequencing. It was ubiquitous. It was the way that all attachment was done
`
`by the end of the 1990s.
`
` And it wasn't --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Well, it seems that you're talking about prior art that
`
`is not in front of us. Because what's in front of us -- primarily the Tsien reference,
`
`Stemple reference, Dower, Prober and Anazawa. So I understand there may have
`
`been later developments, but it's not really helping the case to know what the later
`
`developments are when we have certain objections in front of us.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, I think what it goes to is it shows the motivation of
`
`people skilled in the art to make this modification. It's pointed to specifically in
`
`Prober. It's pointed to specifically in Hobbs. It's pointed to in Stemple and the
`
`other references that were mentioned. And there is evidence in the record, in the
`
`original petition, Dr. Weinstock said that this was a common type of technology.
`
`Dr. Trainor conceded it in this deposition that this was the common way of
`
`making attachments by the time of the --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Well, we've read the briefs and we understand the
`
`position on that point.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Right. But my point is that this isn't a new piece of prior
`
`art that we're trying to make a new combination. What we're showing is the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`motivation that existed in the art to make this particular modification. And that
`
`any argument that one would never have made this modification is simply contrary
`
`to the facts, because the facts show that this was the way that attachment was done
`
`by the end of the 2000s.
`
`And, Dr. Trainor pointed out that -- in his testimony, that this modification
`
`wasn't done because it was is easier. It was more difficult to synthesize a
`
`deazapurine. It was more cumbersome. It took more steps. But nonetheless,
`
`Applied Bio-Systems marketed its products with attachments of the --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Where is that evidence of Applied Bio-Systems?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: In Dr. Burgess's declaration, I believe, at paragraphs --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: He's not -- okay.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: In Dr. Burgess's declaration he explained this very thing.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Okay.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: As I said, Dr. Trainor conceded that it was the dominant
`
`form of attachment. And he also conceded in his deposition, which he had to
`
`because it's in his patents as well that it was a better way of attaching, better than
`
`attaching a D position.
`
`So, by the conclusion of the 1990s, this technology was ubiquitous in the art
`
`for attachment of labels.
`
`And parallel with this, there were -- there was work that was being done in
`
`the sequencing and biosynthesis fields and particularly by a group of scientists,
`
`Welch, Burgess and Metzner. And what they were trying to do was to attach labels
`
`at the 3' --
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: I understand you're trying to tell a story, but we
`
`understand that. And we would like to get to more of your rejections. Like why
`
`you think the claims are obvious based on this prior art that is actually in front of
`
`us.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Okay. Well, maybe --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Because, you know, we've instituted, so we clearly
`
`understand what's, you know, what's going on. And I'm unclear at this point
`
`whether you're talking about, you know, developments that occurred after the filing
`
`date or before the filing date, so it gets a little confusing that way.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, as I illustrated on the slide, all those developments
`
`with the exception of the filing of the Barnes application, the Illumina application,
`
`preceded the filing date of the -- of the Ju patent application here.
`
`And this is all in the record. This goes to the argument that Columbia has
`
`made that, number one, no one would have ever attached at the 7-deaza position.
`
`So that's the argument. That goes to every claim that's at issue here, which -- where
`
`the rejection is based on Tsien plus Prober. Tsien plus Prober is a rejection to every
`
`claim at issue in this IPR.
`
`And their argument primarily is that it wouldn't have been obvious to make
`
`that modification. Well, my point is, and I think the evidence shows, that by the
`
`time the patent was filed in 2000, not only would it have been obvious, everyone
`
`was doing it that way. And they were doing it because it was the best way to
`
`attach. There was -- there were work -- groups that were working to show exactly
`
`why attaching at the 7-deaza position was advantageous over attaching at the C-8
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`position. That was Ramzaeva, Seela, Ward among others demonstrate specifically
`
`why it was a better place to attach. And that's because when you attach the label, it
`
`tends to stick out into open space when you attach it to the 7 position. And
`
`therefore it doesn't interfere with the ability of the nucleotide to be incorporated.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: And what declaration of yours lays that case out more
`
`clearly? Is that in the original Weinstock declaration?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, there are two declarations at issue here, right.
`
`So Weinstock's declaration he explains that the advantages of attaching at
`
`the 7-deaza position, and he points to Prober and Hobbs.
`
` He also points to references by Williams. There are two separate Williams.
`
`There is a Pete Williams and a Jay Williams. That they were attaching the 7-deaza
`
`position after Tsien and referenced by Kinnard as well. So he makes that case.
`
` And then also that it was common by the time of the filing of the
`
`application.
`
`And then in the Burgess declaration, he lays out in rebuttal to the arguments
`
`that Columbia made, the fact that by the time 2000 rolled around, attachment of the
`
`7-deaza position was common and was well accepted in the art as the most
`
`effective way to make the attachment.
`
`But the other argument that Columbia has made is that it wouldn't have been
`
`obvious to attach at a base at all. A base -- strike that.
`
`That it wouldn't have been obvious to attach the label to a base at all.
`
`Obviously Tsien showed that very thing, so that's a little bit beside the point. But,
`
`they make sort of a starting-point argument.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`And I think this slide again, slide 2, shows graphically why that's not the
`
`case.
`
`What happened is, as I was indicating before, is there was this group of
`
`Welch, Burgess and Metzner. They were trying to attach the label at the 3'-OH
`
`position, which is the further embodiment in Tsien. What they found after years of
`
`trying was that it didn't really work. What they said was -- and they published this
`
`in an article that was published in 1999, attaching a label to the 3'-OH position
`
`tends to be too big to fit, and so it interferes with the incorporation of fluoros and --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: It sounds like you're trying to bolster your prima facie
`
`case.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: No, I don't think so, Your Honor. Because, well, for one
`
`thing, attachment at the base is already a given, because that was disclosed in
`
`Tsien.
`
`So is this an argument in response to their starting-point argument.
`
`We already showed that Tsien doesn't just suggest it, but actually says attach
`
`the label at the base. So that's in the prior art, and I don't really think that that's
`
`disputed. What we're pointing out is that by the time -- and we're pointing out that
`
`contemporaneously with the publication of this Welch article, a number of people
`
`arrived at exactly the same conclusion.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So where's Tsien? Can we go to Tsien? Where does
`
`Tsien show you put the label on the base using a cleavable linker?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Sure. Let's get to that.
`
`Okay.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`So Tsien discloses in a number of places attachment of the label to the base.
`
`At the -- here on page 26 -- excuse me, on page 27, he says that you can use
`
`a label such as a fluorescent group which is coupled to a remote position such as a
`
`base.
`
`JUDGE LANE: And you're on slide five of your exhibit?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Yes, thank you, Your Honor, I'm on slide five.
`
`There are a number of other places as well that demonstrates the very same
`
`thing, including on page 30 where it actually shows some examples of attaching at
`
`the base.
`
`Dr. Trainor agreed that Tsien shows an embodiment where a fluorescent
`
`label is on the base and there is a 3'-blocked OH.
`
`Tsien also discloses -- I'm looking now at slide 6 of our demonstratives a
`
`cleavable 3'-blocking group. And this is a reference to page 20 of Tsien. This is
`
`line 28 through page 21, line 3.
`
`There is a section in Tsien that talks about blocking groups and has a
`
`number of different types of blocking groups that can be used. And, in fact, Tsien
`
`discloses the very blocking group that is used in the Columbia patent, an allyl
`
`blocking group. And he discloses that on page 24, at lines 24 through 30.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: What kind of sequencing scheme was Tsien using?
`
`Was he using deoxy, dideoxy sequencing or was he doing sequencing by
`
`synthesis?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Sequencing by synthesis. That was the whole point of
`
`Tsien was to do sequencing by synthesis as an improvement over Sanger's
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`sequencing. That's exactly what he said.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So in sequencing by synthesis, you would necessarily
`
`want a blocking group on the 3-prime end, right?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Certainly that's the most common way of doing
`
`sequencing.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So that was known. And that's shown in Tsien, having
`
`blocking groups on the 3' end?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: That's right, yes. And what it shows here is a small
`
`3'-blocking group, a cleable one. And he shows an allyl blocking group, as I
`
`mentioned, as the very type of blocking group that is shown in the Columbia
`
`patent. The only blocking -- well, there are two blocking groups, but that's one of
`
`the two is shown in the Columbia patent.
`
`Looking at slide 7, Tsien also discloses a cleavable linker.
`
`Tsien says that there could be a tether, which attaches the label to the remote
`
`position such as the base. The tether can be cleavable. And he gives some
`
`examples of types of linkers that can be used that are cleavable, and specifically
`
`says they can be cleavable by chemical means.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Right. But the claims or some of the claims require
`
`that the groove of the group is on the base that connects the label to the base. I
`
`don't see Tsien saying that.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, this part right here is talking about a label that's
`
`attached to the base.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: It just says attached to the nucleotide.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, if you look immediately before it -- maybe I can
`
`get Tsien here.
`
`(Whereupon, there was a pause in the proceedings.)
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: I'm not sure if I can work this exactly like I would like
`
`to.
`
`JUDGE LANE: You can just tell us.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Maybe I'm tell you. It's easier.
`
`JUDGE LANE: I think it's the figure in 1002, is that --
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Yes, this is Exhibit 1002 and I was attempting to put on
`
`the Elmo a portion of page 28 which, beginning at page 27, around line 33, starts
`
`talking about alternatives to labeling at the 3'-OH position. And it says, which we
`
`went through before, there are a number of alternatives. Particularly you can use a
`
`label such as a fluorescent group coupled to a remote position such as a base. And
`
`then it says -- it talks about one method of -- involves use of a fluorescent tag
`
`attached to the base nucleotide, and it talks about it in a irreversible form. And this
`
`is at page 28, beginning at line five.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: And you're reading from what reference?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: The Tsien reference, Exhibit 1002.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Thank you.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Okay. So Tsien, Exhibit 1002, page 28, beginning at
`
`line 5, talks about one type of labeling using a fluorescent tag, tag on the base.
`
`And then it says that can be irreversible. And then beginning at line 19, it talks
`
`about another type of labeling and it says, "What did you do there?" And that what
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`I have up in front of you on slide 7. It's the use of a cleavable linker.
`
`So you can, instead of having a label that doesn't come off, as an alternative,
`
`you can have a label that does come off. And it specifically says that.
`
`This section here is all about labeling of the base. Beginning at page 27 and
`
`continuing through page 30.
`
`Okay?
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So what about, now, most of the claims also have the
`
`deaza on it, so where does the deaza come from? How do we get to there?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Sure. Tsien specifically points to the Prober reference.
`
`And Prober, as I indicated before, discloses attachment at a 7-deaza position for the
`
`purine. And that's the only type of attachment that is shown in Prober.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Do you have testimony on that, that's the only type of
`
`attachment shown in Prober? Is there evidence of that?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: I'm pretty confident we do. I'm not sure I can cite it right
`
`here in front of you, but if you look at Prober, there are only I think three places in
`
`Prober where there is reference to attachment at the purine. And each time it says
`
`7-deazapurine. It is a relatively short reference and that's all that it's about.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Well, I think you would have to establish that fact, but
`
`I do think that it's in the Burgess declaration.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: I'm pretty sure that we've said it as the type attachment
`
`that's shown in Prober.
`
`In addition, as I indicated, attachment at the 7-deaza position became even
`
`more common after Tsien and Prober were published. I went through that earlier
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`with reference to slide 2.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Does Columbia agree or disagree with you about the
`
`deaza in Tsien?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, they don't dispute that Prober teaches a deaza,
`
`sure.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Sure. But what about Tsien, do they dispute that?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Their argument, as I understand it, as it relates to Tsien,
`
`is that Tsien points to attachment at the C-8 position for a purine and that it points
`
`to Prober for attachment with a purine. That's their argument.
`
`And the point I was making earlier when I was talking about the evolution of
`
`the technology, was that not only does Prober say what the advantages of attaching
`
`at the C-7 position, not the C-8, but after Prober there was even more in the art that
`
`explained why a C-7 was a better attachment position than a C-8 position.
`
`So, while the C-7 was a harder and the 7-deaza was a harder period to
`
`synthesis, as a matter of fact it turned out that it worked better. And so, that was
`
`the reason that by 2000 it became the dominant way of attaching labels to bases for
`
`DNA sequencing.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: You're making that argument based on other reference
`
`that are not part of the original prima facie case that you -- excuse me, the
`
`patentability challenge?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Well, what I would say is that we're making that both
`
`based on the references that were part of the original filing and argument -- and
`
`references that were added after, yes.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Right.
`
`But that sounds like you're trying to bolster your prima facie case.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: No, I wouldn't put it that way. I'm sorry?
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: I hadn't finished.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: I apologize. I thought you were done. But I wouldn't
`
`say it that way. What we're doing is we're responding to specific arguments that
`
`Columbia has made about why it would not, they think, have been obvious to make
`
`this modification. And I think that's entirely permissible for us to do in our
`
`response to their papers.
`
`They are the ones -- they amended the claims after all to focus on this deaza
`
`limitation. We established in our original papers, and pointed you to a Weinstock
`
`declaration and some of these other references that show that 7-deaza was an
`
`attachment point that was used in the art. And then in response to their specific
`
`arguments about why that wouldn't have been a good idea, we have cited
`
`additional references to show that in fact that was the predominant way of
`
`attachment by the time 2000 rolled around.
`
`I think it's worth pointing out -- this was in the slide that we were looking at
`
`in the beginning. I mentioned how the contemporaneous invention by others
`
`argument that we've made, that once Welch came out with his publication saying
`
`labels are too big to fit at the 3'-OH position position, at least four other groups
`
`happened upon the exact same solution to that problem. Stemple, Amersham or
`
`Odedra, Ju and Barns/Illumina/Solexa all said, you know what, if it's too big to fit
`
`at the 3'-OH position, we're going to attach it at the base.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`But not only that, because of course Tsien had already disclosed that very
`
`thing, not only did they say we're going to attach it at the base, they said we're
`
`going to attach it at the 7-deaza position. This is in 1990. This is a
`
`contemporaneous invention by others that I think that the law is clear tends to
`
`show obviousness.
`
`JUDGE LANE: Did you make this argument in your brief?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: This was an argument that was made in our reply. This is
`
`an objective indicia of obviousness that was included in our reply not in our
`
`original petition.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: And you were citing Stemple, Ju, Barnes, Welch, and
`
`what was the other reference I heard?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Odedra.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Spell that.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: O-D-E-D-R-A, which is Exhibit 1048. Odedra
`
`sometimes is referred to as Amersham in the papers, because that was the
`
`inventive --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: In all of these references your position will show an
`
`attachment at the fluorescein base -- of the fluorescein tag to the base at the 7'
`
`position?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: At the 7-deaza position, yes.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Are these -- are all five of these references prior art to
`
`Columbia?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: No. They are not.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Which ones are?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Of those, obviously one of them is Columbia, so that's
`
`not --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Stemple is.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Stemple is and the other two are not. So Odedra is not
`
`prior art and the Barnes reference is not.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: All right. Welch?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Welch doesn't show -- I'm sorry, maybe I should clarify
`
`my previous comment.
`
`Welch doesn't show attachment at the 7-deaza position. Welch is the one
`
`that says the label is too big to fit at the 3'-OH. Welch didn't propose a specific
`
`solution. My point was that once Welch came out with his article saying it was too
`
`big to fit, everybody else came up with the same solution at about the same time.
`
`Which is attachment at the base and attach at the 7-deaza position.
`
`JUDGE LANE: To be clear, this argument is not part of your prima facie
`
`case, it's part of your reply?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: The contemporaneous invention by others argument is
`
`part of the reply, yes.
`
`(Whereupon, there was a pause in the proceedings.)
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Okay. As I indicated, some of these we have already
`
`gone over.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: I think we understand that.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Fair enough.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`Now, as I indicated, Prober explains why 7-deazapurines are advantageous,
`
`but so are the Hobbs' reference, which was in our original petition and was cited
`
`for this very proposition. Hobbs is an invention by Hobbs, Prober and Trainor.
`
`And Hobbs explains in detail why this was better and explains synthetic routes to
`
`synthesize the particular molecules that are at issue here.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: So Hobbs is prior art, but it was not cited in your
`
`petition, and you're now relying on it to establish why you would use deazapurine
`
`to attach the fluorescent tag?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: No. Hobbs was cited in our petition. You're right, it is
`
`prior art. It was cited as a grounds of rejection by us, by Illumina, in the petition. It
`
`was found by the Board to be redundant.
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Okay. Right.
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: The point though, again this goes to the motivation, this
`
`is an attempt at a new obviousness --
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: First evidence of the advantage of using a 7-deaza?
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Right. Exactly. And Hobbs has great detail on exactly
`
`how to make nucleotide analogues, deaza nucleotide analogues. And, in fact, the
`
`patent that is at issue here points only to Hobbs and Prober for its teaching of how
`
`to synthesize a 7-deaza nucleotide to be used in its invention. So there's an
`
`argument that's been made by Columbia that, well, none of them really know how
`
`to synthesize this particular molecule. But Hobbs has great detail on that.
`
`The Ju patents point to Hobbs and Hobbs and Prober only as support for
`
`how to do the synthesis of the very molecules that they're attempting to patent.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00006
`U.S. Patent 7,713,698
`
`
`JUDGE LEBOVITZ: Prober does not? Is that --
`
`MR. COSTAKOS: Prober says -- Prober is an article. It's much shorter than
`
`Hobbs. But it has a paragraph that says here is a highly convergent and general
`
`approach, and it explains how to make a -- I think it's a dideoxy-T. I think it
`
`explains how to make the T version. It doesn't exp