`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 69
`
` Entered: May 4, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Background
`A.
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute
`an inter partes review of claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,842,502 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’502 Patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). William
`Beaumont Hospital (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper
`11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`On May 6, 2016, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–14,
`16–29, 33, and 35–38 on all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the
`Petition. (Paper 14, “Dec.”). After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 25, “PO Resp.”)1 and Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 42, “Pet. Reply”). Petitioner relies on the Declarations of Dr. James
`J. Balter (Exs. 1102, 1500). Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Ali
`Bani-Hashemi, Ph.D. (Ex. 2080). Patent Owner also filed a Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 49; “PO Mot.”), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition
`(Paper 55; “Pet. Opp.”) and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 59; “PO
`Reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on January 31, 2017. Paper 66 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. In this Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, we
`determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 27) was granted in our Order of
`January 3, 2017 (Paper 46). Unless otherwise indicated, all references
`herein to the Patent Owner Response will be to the public version (Paper
`26).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`that any claim for which trial was instituted, claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and
`35–38 of the ’502 patent, is unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following district court
`proceeding concerning the ’502 Patent: Elekta Ltd. and William Beaumont
`Hospital v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-12169-AC-
`MKM (E.D. Mich.). Pet. 1; Paper 9, 1. Petitioner and Patent Owner identify
`further the following inter partes reviews also directed to the ’502 Patent:
`IPR2016-00160, IPR2016-00163, and IPR2016-00166. Pet. 1; Paper 9, 2.
`Patent Owner identifies additionally the following inter partes reviews
`directed to U.S. Patent No. 7,471,765 B2, which claims priority to the ’502
`Patent: IPR2016-00169, IPR2016-00170, and IPR2016-00171. Paper 9, 2.
`Patent Owner identifies also the following inter partes review directed to
`U.S. Patent No. 7,826,592 B2, which claims priority to the ’502 Patent:
`IPR2016-00187. Paper 9, 3.
`
`The ’502 Patent
`C.
`The ’502 Patent discloses that it is directed to a cone-beam computed
`tomography (“CBCT”) system that employs an amorphous silicon flat-panel
`imager (“FPI”) for use in radiotherapy applications where images of a
`patient are acquired with the patient in a treatment position on a treatment
`table. Ex. 1101, 1:11–17. Figure 17(b) (below) depicts a diagrammatic
`view of one orientation of an exemplary wall-mounted cone beam
`computerized tomography system employing a flat-panel imager. Ex. 1101,
`6:53–56.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`
`Specifically, Figure 17(b) depicts wall-mounted cone beam computerized
`tomography system 400 including an x-ray source, such as x-ray tube 402,
`and flat-panel imager 404 mounted on gantry 406. Ex. 1101, 19:64–20:2.
`X-ray tube 402 generates a beam of x-rays 407 in a form of a cone or
`pyramid. Ex. 1101, 20:2–4. Flat-panel imager 404 employs amorphous
`silicon detectors. Ex. 1101, 20:6–7.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 of the ’502
`Patent. Claim 1 is the only independent claim at issue, and is reproduced
`below:
`
`A radiation therapy system comprising:
`1.
`a radiation source that moves about a path and directs a
`beam of radiation towards an object;
`a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising:
`an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-
`beam form towards said object;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass
`through the object, said imager providing an image of said
`object, wherein said image contains at least three
`dimensional information of said object based on one
`rotation of said x-ray source around said object; and
`a computer connected to said radiation source and
`said cone beam computed tomography system, wherein
`said computer receives said image of said object and based
`on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that
`controls said path of said radiation source.
`E.
`Prior Art References Applied by Petitioner
`and Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and
`35–38 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the following grounds
`and items of prior art (Pet. 16–60):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Cho,2 Antonuk,3 Jaffray
`1997,4 Adler,5 and Depp6
`
`§ 103(a) 1–8, 10–14, 16–29, 33,
`and 35–38
`
`
`2 P.S. Cho et al., Cone-beam CT for radiotherapy applications, Phys. Med.
`Biol., 40:1863-83 (1995) (Ex. 1105, “Cho”).
`3 L.E. Antonuk et al., Thin-Film, Flat-Panel, Composite Imagers for
`Projection and Tomographic Imaging, IEEE Transactions on Medical
`Imaging, 13:482-90 (1994) (Ex. 1106, “Antonuk”).
`4 D.A. Jaffray et al., Exploring “Target Of The Day” Strategies for A
`Medical Linear Accelerator With Conebeam-CT Scanning Capability,
`Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Use of Computers
`in Radiation Therapy, Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 172-75 (1997)
`(Ex. 1107, “Jaffray 1997”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,207,223, issued May 4, 1993 (Ex. 1103, “Adler”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,427,097, issued June 27, 1995 (Ex. 1104, “Depp”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray 1997,
`Boyer,7 Adler, and Depp
`
`§ 103(a) 9
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In an inter partes review, 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) (affirming that USPTO has
`statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)).
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the
`following claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those
`terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`
`7 A.L. Boyer, Laser “cross-hair” sidelight, Med. Phys., 5:58-60 (1978)
`(Ex. 1108, “Boyer”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`1.
`
`“an image of said object, wherein said image contains at
`least three dimensional information of said object based
`on one rotation of said x-ray source around said object”
`Independent claim 1 recites “an image of said object, wherein said
`image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on
`one rotation of said x-ray source around said object.” Petitioner asserts that
`“three dimensional information” should be construed as “information
`concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and
`depth).” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1101, 3:40–43; Ex. 1102 ¶ 37); Pet. Reply
`1–3 (citing Exs. 1500 ¶¶ 9–228; 1502, 78:22–80:16, 83:14–87:11, 135:10–
`136:11).9 Patent Owner asserts that the aforementioned claim limitation, in
`its entirety, should be construed as “a volumetric image of an object
`generated by reconstructing 2-D projection images.” PO Resp. 13–16
`(citing Ex. 1101, 1:37–42, 1:45–54, 2:42–48, 2:51–55, 3:40–43, 3:54–55,
`5:6–10, 16:43–45, 16:58–62; Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 84–89). We agree with Petitioner.
`We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three
`dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any
`information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width,
`and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s
`above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those
`portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable
`
`8 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter,
`Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent
`Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James
`Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56).
`9 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s
`proposed construction of “three dimensional information.” Dec. 7–8.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would
`have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with
`Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly
`disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence
`between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2,
`lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-
`tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.”
`In another example, column 3, lines 40–43, mentions “three-dimensional (3-
`D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric” data;
`however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three dimensional
`information.” In a further example, column 9, line 62, through column 10,
`line 5, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to
`“three dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines
`43–45 and 58–62, do not recite “three dimensional information,” instead
`disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to
`“volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a
`particular relationship.
`Finally, in regard to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr.
`Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim
`limitation “three dimensional information” in conjunction with another
`claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a
`volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of
`the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.”
`Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. The claim limitation at issue, however, reads “an image of
`said object, wherein said image contains at least three dimensional
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around
`said object” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim limitation does not
`preclude an image having more information than “information concerning
`three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth),” such as “a
`volumetric image of an object generated by reconstructing 2-D projection
`images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be
`required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such
`information is required under a proper construction of “three dimensional
`information” for the reasons set forth supra.
`We construe “three dimensional information” as “information
`concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and
`depth).”
`2.
`
`“a computer . . . that controls said path of said
`radiation source”
`Independent claim 1 recites “a computer connected to said radiation
`source and said cone beam computed tomography system, wherein said
`computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a
`signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation
`source.” Petitioner asserts that this is a means-plus-function limitation that
`should be construed in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6, or in the alternative, that
`the structure for performing the recited function is a computer performing
`the algorithm described at column 4, lines 57–62, column 27, lines 15–23,
`column 27, line 40 to column 28, line 19, and depicted in Figures 24 and 26.
`Pet. 14–16. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner disagreed. Prelim.
`Resp. 13–14.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`In the Institution Decision, we preliminary determined that “we are
`not persuaded that the term ‘computer’ fails to recite sufficiently definite
`structure. As a result, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plus-
`function limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” Dec. 10. In its Response,
`Patent Owner agreed with the Board’s preliminary determination.
`PO Resp. 11. Petitioner did not address this construction in its Reply. See
`generally Pet. Reply 1–4.
`After considering our preliminary determination anew, in light a
`complete trial record, we remain unpersuaded that the term “computer” fails
`to recite sufficiently definite structure. Accordingly, we decline to construe
`this limitation as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with § 112
`¶ 6.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007).
`Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of
`ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent,
`would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D.
`(or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field,
`and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and
`image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology
`applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an
`M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is
`preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level
`of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation.
`We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any
`significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the
`art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a
`judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”);
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The
`importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the
`necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that
`end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level.
`See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.
`
`The Parties’ Post-Institution Arguments
`C.
`In our Decision on Institution, we concluded that the arguments and
`evidence advanced by Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were unpatentable as obvious based on
`Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray 1997, Adler, and Depp, and in the case of dependent
`claim 9, additionally Boyle. Dec. 21. We must now determine whether
`Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed
`waived.” Paper 15, 3; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). Additionally, the
`Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should
`identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state
`the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`In connection with the arguments and evidence advanced by
`Petitioner to support its positions that Patent Owner chose not to address in
`its Patent Owner Response, the record now contains persuasive, unrebutted
`arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner regarding the manner in
`which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding elements of the claims
`against which that prior art is asserted. Based on the preponderance of the
`evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art identified by Petitioner
`describes all other limitations of the reviewed claims, except for those that
`Patent Owner contested in the Patent Owner Response, which we address
`below.
`
`Claims 1–8, 10–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 as
`D.
`Unpatentable Over Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray 1997, Adler,
`and Depp
`Petitioner asserts that a combination of Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray 1997,
`Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–8, 10–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38.
`Pet. 16–58. Patent Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 18–61. Petitioner replies.
`Pet. Reply 4–25. Claim 1 is the only independent claim for this ground.
`1.
`Cho (Ex. 1105)
`Cho describes a cone-beam CT system for radiotherapy applications,
`and algorithm used therein to permit an increased reconstruction volume to
`be imaged using a detector of a given size. Ex. 1105, Abstract. The system
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`described in Cho is a digital spot imager (id. at 6), but Cho also describes the
`use of a flat panel detector for real-time diagnostic X-ray imaging.
`Ex. 1105, 24 (citing Antonuk). Cho describes generating a 3-D image “by
`rotating the gantry over 360º at approximately 1º increments.” Ex. 1105, 9,
`15–17.
`
`Antonuk (Ex. 1106)
`2.
`Antonuk describes “Thin-Film, Flat-Panel, Composite Imagers for
`Projection and Tomographic Imaging.” Ex. 1106, Title. Specifically,
`Antonuk describes how “[t]he recent development of large-area, flat-panel a-
`Si:H imaging arrays is generally expected to lead to real-time diagnostic and
`megavoltage x-ray projection imagers with film-cassette-like profiles.” Ex.
`1106, Abstract. According to Antonuk, “[t]he construction, operation, and
`properties of the arrays have been extensively reported.” Ex. 1106, 3. “It is
`widely perceived that part of the solution is to obtain imaging information
`with the portal beam immediately prior to and/or during the treatment.” Ex.
`1106, 5. “Toward this aim of patient verification, a variety of real-time
`mega voltage imaging devices, including our a-Si:H imager, have been
`developed over the last decade.” Ex. 1106, 5. “This composite imager
`would be positioned behind the patient in the middle of the mega voltage
`radiation field during imaging.” Ex. 1106, 6, Fig. 5. In an alternative
`configuration, “[s]everal a-Si:H x-ray detectors rotate with an x-ray tube
`collecting conebeam projection data inside the bore of a PET machine.”
`Ex. 1106, 8.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`Jaffray 1997 (Ex. 1107)
`3.
`Jaffray 1997 describes “a conebeam-computed tomography (CB-CT)
`scanner for installation on our medical linear accelerator.” Ex. 1107, 4.10 A
`schematic of the dual-beam imaging system is shown in Figure 1 of Jaffray
`1997, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Ex. 1107, 5. As shown in Figure 1, “[t]wo fluoroscopic imaging systems are
`attached to a Philips SL-20 medical linear accelerator; one detects the
`megavoltage image, the other a kV image produced with a kV beam
`projected at 90º to the treatment beam axis.” Ex. 1107, 4. Jaffray 1997
`states that the “gantry is rotated continuously” in order to generate a
`“conebeam imaging sequence consist[ing] of ~100 exposures over 194º of
`rotation.” Ex. 1107, 5.
`
`
`10 Many Exhibits, such as Exhibit 1107, include two page numbers: the
`original page number from the source material itself, and the page numbers
`added by the parties. For consistency, we use the page numbers added by
`the parties.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`Adler (Ex. 1103)
`4.
`Adler teaches an apparatus and method for extending a surgical
`instrumentality to a target region in a patient, for example, for performing
`stereotaxic surgery using an x-ray linear accelerator. Ex. 1103, 1:6–10.
`Specifically, Adler teaches that a 3-dimensional mapping of a mapping
`region of at least a portion of a living organism is prepared. Ex. 1103, 3:64–
`68. First and second diagnostic beams are then passed through the mapping
`region, and are used to produce respective first and second images of
`respective first and second projections within the mapping region. Ex. 1103,
`4:5–10. Adler then teaches that the 3-dimensional mapping and the first and
`second images are compared to derive therefrom data representative of a
`real-time location of a target portion of the mapping region. Ex. 1103, 4:41–
`46. Adler teaches further “adjusting the relative position of the beaming
`apparatus 20 and the patient 14 as needed in response to data which is
`representative of the real time location of the target region 18.” Ex. 1103,
`7:37–40.
`
`Depp (Ex. 1104)
`5.
`Depp teaches an apparatus for and method of carrying out stereotaxic
`radiosurgery and/or radiotherapy on a particular target region within a
`patient utilizing previously obtained reference data indicating the position of
`the target region with respect to its surrounding area, which also contains
`certain nearby reference points. Ex. 1104, 1:6–12. Depp further teaches the
`following:
`The apparatus also utilizes a pair of diagnostic beams of radiation
`or target locating beams, as they will be referred to in this
`discussion. These beams are passed through the surrounding
`area containing the target region and reference points and, after
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`
`passing through the surrounding area, contain data indicating the
`positions of the reference points within the surrounding area.
`This position data is collected by cooperating detectors, as
`described previously, and delivered to the multiprocessor
`computer where the latter compares it with previously obtained
`reference data for determining the position of the target region
`with respect to each of the reference points during each such
`comparison. The radiosurgical beam is accurately directed into
`the target region in substantially real time based on this
`information.
`Ex. 1104, 11:46–61.
`
`Petitioner’s Initial Positions
`6.
`Petitioner asserts that a combination of Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray 1997,
`Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–8, 10–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38.
`Pet. 16–58. For example, independent claim 1 recites “a radiation source
`that moves about a path and directs a beam of radiation towards an object.”
`Petitioner cites Adler for teaching beaming apparatus 20 performing
`stereotaxic surgery using an x-ray linear accelerator, and cites Antonuk and
`Jaffray 1997 for teaching medical linear accelerators. Pet. 25–26.
`Independent claim 1 also recites
`a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising:
`an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam
`form towards said object;
`a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass
`through the object, said imager providing an image of said object,
`Petitioner cites Cho and Jaffray 1997 for disclosing CBCT x-ray systems,
`and cites Cho and Antonuk for teaching a flat panel imager for receiving
`diagnostic x-rays and providing an image. Pet. 26–29. Independent claim 1
`also recites “wherein said image contains at least three dimensional
`information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`said object.” Petitioner cites Cho for disclosing that “[t]he projection data
`were obtained by rotating the gantry over 360° at approximately 1°
`increments,” and for disclosing a modified Feldkamp algorithm for
`reconstructing the projection data into a 3-D image. Pet. 30 (quoting
`Ex. 1105, 15); Ex. 1105, 22 (“data were available through a full 360°
`rotation.”). Independent claim 1 also recites “a computer connected to said
`radiation source and said cone beam computed tomography system, wherein
`said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image
`sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said
`radiation source.” Petitioner cites Adler for disclosing the comparing of a
`previously obtained 3-dimensional mapping with newly acquired first and
`second images, and then adjusting patient treatment based on that
`comparison. Pet. 31–33. For a rationale to modify Cho, Antonuk, Jaffray
`1997, Adler, and Depp in view of each other, Petitioner sets forth such a
`rationale on pages 34–37 of the Petition. Petitioner performs a similar
`analysis for dependent claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 38–
`58. For the reasons explained in detail below, we agree with Petitioner that
`all limitations are taught by the prior art, and that a skilled artisan would
`have made the proffered modifications for the reasons set forth in the
`Petition.
`7.
`
`Patent Owner’s Assertions Concerning the References
`i.
`Missing Limitation
`Patent Owner asserts that the Petition does not account sufficiently for
`“the element of controlling the path of the radiation beam based on the three-
`dimensional information contained in the claimed image,” because Petitioner
`solely relies on Adler/Depp for the aforementioned claim element, and
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`Adler/Depp does not disclose an image containing three-dimensional
`information. PO Resp. 23–25, 29–30. As an initial matter, we note that
`Patent Owner’s assertions are unpersuasive because they appear to presume
`a construction of “three-dimensional information” as requiring volumetric
`information. As set forth above, we construe “three-dimensional
`information” as “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such
`as length, width, and depth).” Adler discloses conducting radiosurgery using
`a 3-dimensional mapping (Ex. 1103, 4:41–46) and Depp discloses
`conducting radiosurgery and radiotherapy on a target region and reference
`points in 3-dimensional space (Ex. 1104, 11:46–61), each of which we find
`corresponds properly to the aforementioned claim limitation.
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced, because
`Petitioner does not rely solely on Adler/Depp for “the element of controlling
`the path of the radiation beam based on the three-dimensional information
`contained in the claimed image.” PO Resp. 29–30; see Pet. 30–33; Pet.
`Reply 4–5. More specifically, the aforementioned claim “element” is not
`recited in a single limitation of independent claim 1, but instead appears to
`be an amalgamation of several express limitations, namely, “wherein said
`image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on
`one rotation of said x-ray source around said object” and “a computer
`connected to said radiation source and said cone beam computed
`tomography system, wherein said computer receives said image of said
`object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that
`controls said path of said radiation source.” While for the latter limitation,
`Petitioner may rely solely on Adler/Depp, for the former limitation,
`Petitioner also relies on Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, the combination of
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`which we are persuaded meet the entire limitation at issue. Pet. 31; Pet.
`Reply 5.
`Patent Owner asserts also that “[n]one of these references . . . either
`alone or in combination, shows the actual use of an FPI in the context of
`CBCT in the treatment room. (Ex. 2080 ¶ 111).” PO Resp. 26. Patent
`Owner’s assertions are misplaced, as Petitioner relies on a combination of
`references for the above, e.g., Cho/Antonuk for the FPI, Cho/Jaffray ’97 for
`CBCT, and Adler/Depp for the treatment room. See Pet. 26‒29. Patent
`Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive because they are directed to each
`individual reference’s failure to disclose the claim limitations, rather than to
`the combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
`F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Insofar as Patent Owner requires more by
`using the word “actual,” we note that obviousness is a hypothetical exercise,
`given certain factual underpinnings, and so an example of “actual use” is
`unnecessary and beside the point.
`ii.
`Teaching Away
`Petitioner sets forth their rationale, for their proffered modification of
`the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI
`system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 34–37 of the Petition which,
`for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner
`asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation
`therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of
`Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations
`teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 30–37. We disagree.
`We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 30–35.
`Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00162
`Patent 6,842,502 B2
`
`images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT-acquired images of
`Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology”
`because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to
`acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g.,
`60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire
`CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33‒34. According to Patent Owner, such
`a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a
`specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from
`whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions.
`PO Resp. 33‒35.
`We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are
`unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is
`that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this
`assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp
`systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the
`radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 32. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s
`supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent
`Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to
`permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy
`procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of
`Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp.
`Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109, 125, 128 (citing Ex. 1104, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have
`reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that
`target location and treatment periods are on the order of