Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 28, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NIPRO CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NXSTAGE MEDICAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Nipro Corporation and Nipro Medical Corporation (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–9,
`
`12–16, 19–26, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,092,414 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’414
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, NxStage Medical
`
`Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes
`
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the
`
`petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.”
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of an inter partes
`
`review of the ’414 patent.
`
`A. Related Matter
`
`Petitioner identifies U.S. Patent Applications related to the ’414
`
`patent. Pet. 1. Petitioner does not identify any related federal district court
`
`litigation or post-grant proceeding. Id.
`
`B. The ’414 Patent
`
`The ’414 patent relates to a pressure pod for measuring blood pressure
`
`in an extracorporeal blood circuit. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–18, 2:12–14.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’414 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a sectional view of an exemplary tubular blood flow set 10.
`
`Id. at 7:27–30. As shown in Figure 1, one end of pressure pod 12 is
`
`designed to connect to, for example, a dialyzer, via tubing 11, 20. Id. at 8:8–
`
`10, 19–30. The other end of pressure pod 12 is designed to connect to, for
`
`example, a patient, via tubing 16. Id. at 8:10–14, 24–30.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’414 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`Figure 2 depicts an exploded view of pod 12. Id. at 7:31–32. The ’414
`
`patent discloses that pressure pod 12 includes lower compartment-defining
`
`portion 22, upper compartment-defining portion 24, and diaphragm 26
`
`therebetween. Id. at 8:32–34. Lower compartment-defining portion 22
`
`includes blood inlet port 30 and blood outlet port 32, through which blood
`
`will flow. Id. at 8:36–38. Diaphragm 26 is flexible and “defines a convex,
`
`central portion 28 shown to be bulging outwardly from the blood flow
`
`portion of the chamber.” Id. at 8:34–36. Upper compartment-defining
`
`portion 24 includes connection port 40, which connects to pressure tubing 42
`
`and pressure transducer 43, as shown in Figure 1. Id. at 8:61–64, 9:5–12.
`
`
`
`The ’414 patent discloses exemplary operation of the pressure pod as
`
`follows:
`
`[O]ne compartment [22] of the pod is part of a fluid flow path,
`typically blood, through the fluid flow set and the pressure
`sensing chamber. The other of the compartments [24] is
`preferably hermetically sealed by a sealed port, until opened for
`connection with a pressure measuring device. The effect of this
`is to keep the movable, flexible diaphragm [26] in a desired,
`initial position prior to said opening. The diaphragm, when the
`hermetic seal is broken, is capable of moving between a first
`position and a second, opposed position in which the diaphragm
`in the first position can bow outwardly from the blood pathway,
`to maximize blood volume in the chamber, while the diaphragm
`in the second position can bow inwardly to minimize, but
`typically not eliminate, blood volume in the chamber.
`
`Id. at 3:31–44. In this way, “the air pressure in tube 42 will match the
`
`pressure of the blood below diaphragm 26, and that air pressure can be
`
`sensed by pressure sensor 43, and reported by an appropriate signal on
`
`preferably a moment-by-moment, real time basis.” Id. at 9:20–24.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 13, and 23 are independent claims. Challenged claims 2–9
`
`and 12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; challenged claims 14–16
`
`and 19–22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13; and challenged
`
`claims 24–26 and 28 depend directly or indirectly from claim 23.
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`A tubular blood flow set which comprises a
`1.
`
`pressure sensing pod defining a chamber, said pod being
`connected in flow-through relation to blood flow tubing of said
`set, said set defining a length of pressure tubing connected at
`one end with said chamber, for connection at the other pressure
`tubing end with a pressure measuring equipment connector with
`said pod being spaced from said connector; and a flexible
`diaphragm sealingly mounted within said pod between
`connections of said blood flow tubing and said pressure tubing,
`said diaphragm being moveable between first and second
`positions, the diaphragm in said first position bowing outwardly
`to substantially maximize volume in said chamber that
`communicates with said blood flow tubing, the diaphragm in
`said second position bowing inwardly to substantially minimize
`but not eliminate the blood volume in said chamber that is
`inside of said diaphragm, said diaphragm in use being in
`contact on one side thereof with flowing blood;
`
`wherein the pressure tubing is flexible and elongate and
`integrally attached to the chamber to permit the pod to be
`positioned remotely from the pressure measuring equipment
`connector and to permit the pod and blood flow tubing set to be
`connected to blood treatment machines with pressure measuring
`equipment connectors in various locations of the blood
`treatment machines.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:49–15:5 (emphases added). Independent claims 13 and
`
`23 include language similar to that emphasized above in claim 1. Id.
`
`at 15:53 (“which [pressure] tubing is integral with said pod”), 16:33
`
`(“the pressure tubing being integral with said pod”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Gangemi
`
`Kersten
`
`Kell
`
`
`
`Brugger
`
`Tamari
`
`Utterberg
`
`He
`
`
`
`Calzia
`
`Minami
`
`Kirita
`
`Sato
`
`
`
`Onishi
`
`
`
`Isou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 4,077,882
`
`US 4,226,124
`
`US 4,412,926
`
`US 5,693,008
`
`US 6,039,078
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mar. 7, 1978
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`Oct. 7, 1980
`
`(Ex. 1014)
`
`Nov. 1, 1983
`
`(Ex. 1015)
`
`Dec. 2, 1997
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`Mar. 21, 2000
`
`(Ex. 1024)
`
`US 2002/0007137 A1
`
`Jan. 17, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1033)
`
`CN 2522849Y
`
`FD 2346238
`
`JP 61-143069 A
`
`JP 62-5172
`
`JP 64-29267
`
`JP 09-24026 A
`
`JP 2001-353215
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nov. 27, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1025)1
`
`Oct. 28, 1977
`
`(Ex. 1031)2
`
`June 30, 1986
`
`(Ex. 1012)3
`
`Feb. 5, 1987
`
`(Ex. 1027)4
`
`Jan. 31, 1989
`
`(Ex. 1020)5
`
`Jan. 28, 1997
`
`(Ex. 1016)6
`
`Dec. 25, 2001
`
`(Ex. 1029)7
`
`
`1 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1026.
`2 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1032.
`3 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1013.
`4 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1028.
`5 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1021.
`6 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1017.
`7 Petitioner presents a translation and translator declaration. See Ex. 1030.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Minami
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 2, and 7
`
`Minami and Kirita
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`3 and 9
`
`Minami, Kirita, and Isou
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`Minami and Tamari
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5 and 6
`
`Minami and Brugger
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`8
`
`Minami and He, as evidenced
`by Gangemi, Onishi, Kersten,
`Calzia, and Kell (“the Dome
`References”)
`Minami and He, as evidenced
`by the Dome References and
`Utterberg
`Minami, He, and Kirita, as
`evidenced by the Dome
`References
`Minami, He, Kersten, as
`evidenced by the Dome
`References and Sato
`Minami and He, as evidenced
`by the Dome References and
`Utterberg
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, and 26
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`14
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`15 and 25
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`20, 21, and 28
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`24
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *12 (U.S. June 20, 2016).
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following terms and phrases:
`
`“pressure sensing pod” (claim 1); “said diaphragm being movable between
`
`first and second positions . . . in said chamber that is inside of said
`
`diaphragm” (claim 1); “wherein the pressure tubing is . . . integrally attached
`
`to the chamber” (claims 1, 13, 23);8 “said diaphragm is dome shaped”
`
`(claims 12, 13, 23);9 and “outwardly in either of two opposed directions”
`
`(claim 12). Pet. 13–21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s
`
`constructions and proposes its own constructions. Prelim. Resp. 11–39.
`
`On the record before us, only the phrase “wherein the pressure tubing
`
`is . . . integrally attached to the chamber” requires construction. We need
`
`not construe explicitly the remaining terms and phrases in reaching our
`
`Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we provide the remaining terms and
`
`phrases their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in light of the ’414 patent Specification.
`
`
`8 The quoted language appears in claim 1; the language of claims 13 and 23
`varies slightly. Pet. 15–16; see Ex. 1001, 15:53 (“which [pressure] tubing is
`integral with said pod”), 16:33 (“the pressure tubing being integral with said
`pod”).
`9 The quoted language appears in claim 12; the language of claims 13 and 23
`varies slightly. Pet. 17; see Ex. 1001, 15:59–60 (“said diaphragm having a
`dome shape”), 16:39–40 (same).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`“wherein the pressure tubing is . . . integrally attached to the chamber”
`(claim 1); “which [pressure] tubing is integral with said pod” (claim 13);
`“the pressure tubing being integral with said pod” (claim 23)
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of “integral” is “formed as a unit with another part.” Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp.
`
`11; Ex. 1018, 607. Patent Owner contends that this ordinary meaning is
`
`consistent with the ’414 patent Specification and, accordingly, the claim
`
`language should be construed to require that the claimed components are
`
`“bonded or locked together as a sealed unit.” Prelim. Resp. 11–18.
`
`Petitioner contends, however, that this language should be construed
`
`more broadly, to require only that the pressure tubing be “directly attached”
`
`to the pod, because the ordinary meaning of “integral” requires clarification
`
`in the context of the ’414 patent. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4
`
`(showing a direct attachment of tubing to pod)). Specifically, Petitioner
`
`argues that “it is nonsensical for a length of [pressure] tubing and a space
`
`[i.e., the claimed chamber] to be attached to one another, much less formed
`
`as a single unit.” Id. at 16. Petitioner contends also that because the tubing
`
`and pod may be made of different materials, “it makes little sense” for them
`
`to be formed as a single unit. Id. Finally, Petitioner contends that the
`
`claimed “integral” attachment cannot be permanent because dependent claim
`
`16 requires that the tubing be capable of disconnection. Id. at 16–17.
`
`On the record before us, we conclude that the ’414 patent
`
`Specification comports with the cited plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“integral.” Therefore, we adopt so much of Patent Owner’s construction as
`
`requires attachment “as a sealed unit,” which we conclude is the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the Specification.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`Specifically, the ’414 patent Specification discloses that the claimed
`
`pressure tubing and pod, including its internal chamber, may be connected in
`
`a permanent or releasable manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:61–64, 3:51–59,
`
`7:13–15, 12:4–10, 13:35–42. For example, mating connectors, such as luer
`
`locks, may effect this connection. See, e.g., id. at 3:52–57 (disclosing “a
`
`male luer lock connector or any other desired connector”), 11:15–64
`
`(disclosing that the pod includes “female luer lock connector [116] . . . or
`
`other sealing and/or locking means,” which connects with “tubular male luer
`
`lock connector 106”). Furthermore, the Specification describes that this
`
`connection ensures that a sealed and fixed volume of air is present between
`
`the diaphragm and the pressure transducer, to enable accurate sensing of
`
`blood pressure. Id. at 5:14–18 (“[A] sealed, fixed volume of air exists
`
`between the diaphragm and a pressure transducer, with the branch line
`
`pressure tubing extending therebetween . . . [thereby] transmitting the
`
`pressure of the blood to the transducer.”), 5:29–33, 5:58–6:1, 9:15–25.
`
`Therefore, the Specification requires that the claimed “integral” attachment
`
`effects a sealed connection between the pressure tubing and pod, to form a
`
`single unit containing a sealed, fixed volume of air.10
`
`We are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and we conclude that
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is unreasonably broad in light of the ’414
`
`patent Specification. First, we do not agree that “it is nonsensical for a
`
`
`10 The claims of the ’414 patent also support Patent Owner’s contention that
`the claimed “integral” attachment requires more than a direct attachment.
`Claim 1, for example, recites “a length of pressure tubing connected at one
`end with said chamber.” Ex. 1001, 14:52–53. Claim 1 further limits this
`connection, however, by requiring that the tubing is “integrally attached” to
`the chamber. Id. at 14:66–67. The claim language dictates, therefore, that
`the “integral[] attach[ment]” is more than a “connect[ion].”
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`length of [pressure] tubing and a space to be attached to one another, much
`
`less formed as a single unit.” Pet. 16. Claim 1 recites “a pressure sensing
`
`pod defining a chamber.” Ex. 1001, 14:49–50. Therefore, the requirement
`
`of claim 1 that the pressure tubing and chamber are “integrally attached” is
`
`sensible and easily understood, i.e., the pressure tubing must be attached as a
`
`sealed unit with the chamber, wherein the chamber is defined by the pressure
`
`pod. Indeed, this attachment is discussed at length in the ’414 patent
`
`Specification, which discloses that the attached chamber and pressure tubing
`
`together create a “sealed, fixed volume of air,” to enable blood pressure
`
`measurement by the pressure transducer. See Ex. 1001, 5:14–18; see also
`
`Prelim. Resp. 15–17.
`
`We are unpersuaded also by Petitioner’s argument that “it makes little
`
`sense” for the pressure tubing and pod to be formed as a single unit because
`
`they may be made from different materials. Pet. 16. Petitioner fails to
`
`provide any persuasive evidence to support this argument. Id. The cited
`
`portion of the Declaration of Mr. Charles E. Clemens establishes only that
`
`the pressure tubing may be flexible while the pod may be made from
`
`thermoplastic or thermoset materials. Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. This testimony does
`
`not establish, however, that these materials are incapable of being joined as a
`
`sealed unit or that one skilled in the art would expect disadvantages to arise
`
`from such attachment.
`
`Finally, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the claimed
`
`“integral” attachment cannot include a permanent connection. Pet. 16–17.
`
`The construction adopted in this Decision does not require a permanent
`
`connection, but requires simply that the claimed components are attached
`
`“as a sealed unit.” This attachment may be permanent or releasable, as
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`discussed in the ’414 patent Specification, so long as it results in a sealed
`
`unit.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we construe the claimed
`
`“integral” attachment to require attachment “as a sealed unit.”
`
`B. Asserted Ground of Anticipation by Minami
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, and 7 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minami. Pet. 21–26. To support these
`
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts specifying
`
`how claim limitations are disclosed purportedly in Minami. Id. Petitioner
`
`also cites the Declaration of Mr. Charles E. Clemens (Ex. 1002) in support.
`
`Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 39–52.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`challenged claims 1, 2, and 7 are anticipated by Minami.
`
`1. Minami
`
`Minami discloses a device for measuring pressure in a blood circuit,
`
`for example, during hemodialysis. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 1, 7. Minami’s Figure 1 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts measuring device 26, which includes sealed container 11,
`
`divided into two chambers by elastic diaphragm 12 (blood chamber a; air
`
`chamber b). Id. ¶¶ 9–10. A blood circuit communicates with the blood
`
`chamber via tubes 18, 19 such that blood flows into the blood chamber
`
`through inlet 14 and out through outlet 15. Id. ¶ 9; see also id., Fig. 1
`
`(arrows depicting blood flow). On the opposite side of diaphragm 12, the air
`
`chamber is connected to pressure gauge 22 via port 16 and tubing 20, and is
`
`connected to injector 23 via port 17 and tubing 21. Id. ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`As blood circulates through Minami’s blood chamber, “diaphragm 12
`
`is dilated toward air chamber b by the pressure of blood. The capacity of air
`
`chamber b accordingly decreases and air pressure therein correspondingly
`
`increases, resulting in equilibrium. The pressure of blood can be known by
`
`measuring the air pressure at the time by pressure gauge 22.” Id. ¶ 11.
`
`Minami discloses also that diaphragm 12 may be “pushed against the side
`
`inner wall of container 11 closer to blood chamber a.” Id. ¶ 13.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, and 7
`
`Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “pressure tubing connected at
`
`one end with said chamber . . . wherein the pressure tubing is . . . integrally
`
`attached to the chamber.” Ex. 1001, 14:66–67. As discussed in Section
`
`II(A) above, we construe this language to require that the pressure tubing
`
`and chamber are attached as a sealed unit.
`
`Petitioner contends that Minami discloses pressure tubing 20, which is
`
`connected to the air chamber of Minami’s container 11. Pet. 21 (“tube 20
`
`connected [at] one end to a chamber b of container”) (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 9–
`
`11, Figs. 1–3). With respect to the claim language requiring that the
`
`pressure tubing is “integrally attached” to the chamber, Petitioner contends
`
`that this language “should be construed to mean that the pressure tubing is
`
`‘directly attached to the pod.’ The pressure tube 20 of Minami is directly
`
`attached to first connection port 16 of the container 11.” Pet. 25 (citing id.
`
`§ (IV)(B)(3); Ex. 1002 ¶ 75).11
`
`Although the Petition identifies Minami’s tubing and air chamber as
`
`elements that purportedly correspond to the claimed pressure tubing and
`
`chamber, the Petition does not show sufficiently that these elements are
`
`“integrally attached,” as that language has been construed in this Decision,
`
`i.e., attached as a sealed unit. See Pet. 21–25. Rather, the Petition solely
`
`addresses the unreasonably broad construction that Petitioner urges us to
`
`adopt, and shows only that Minami’s tubing and chamber are directly
`
`attached at the juncture of port 16 and tubing 20. Id.
`
`
`11 Paragraph 75 of the Declaration of Mr. Charles E. Clemens (Ex. 1002)
`repeats the contentions made in the Petition, in nearly verbatim language.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`
`The Petition does not show that Minami discloses, either expressly or
`
`inherently, an integral attachment between Minami’s tubing 20 and the air
`
`chamber of container 11. The cited portions of Minami’s disclosure are
`
`silent regarding this attachment, despite describing other connections as
`
`“integral” or “sealed.” Pet. 21, 25 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 9–11); see also
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 10 (disclosing that container 11 and diaphragm 12 are “tightly
`
`sealed,” and disclosing that ports 14, 15, 16, 17 are “integral with” container
`
`11). Furthermore, Minami’s Figures 1–3, cited by Petitioner, do not provide
`
`sufficient detail to establish that the attachment of tubing 20 to port 16 forms
`
`a sealed unit. Pet. 21, 25 (citing Ex. 1013, Figs. 1–3). Rather, as argued by
`
`Patent Owner, the Figures appear to depict a slip friction fit, which may or
`
`may not be sealed. See Prelim. Resp. 49–50.
`
`Additionally, the Petition fails to show that a sealed, fixed volume of
`
`air is necessarily present between Minami’s diaphragm 12 and pressure
`
`sensor 22, by virtue of the attachment of tubing 20 and port 16. Minami
`
`discloses that injector 23 communicates with the air chamber to add air into
`
`the chamber when needed. See Ex. 1013 ¶ 11 (“In a case where a blood
`
`pressure is high, air is blown into respective air chambers b by injectors 23a
`
`and 23b so that a degree of deformation of diaphragm 12 becomes as small
`
`as possible.”). Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition has
`
`not established that it is necessarily the case that Minami’s pressure tubing
`
`and chamber are attached as a sealed unit, precluding the escape of air from
`
`the air chamber. Prelim. Resp. 49.
`
`By relying solely on an overly broad construction of “integrally
`
`attached,” and failing to provide any evidence or argument on the record as
`
`to whether Minami’s attachment of pressure tubing 20 to the air chamber
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`results in a sealed unit, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that
`
`Minami discloses, either expressly or inherently, this limitation.12 For these
`
`reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition fails to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`
`that independent claim 1 is anticipated by Minami. Likewise, and for the
`
`same reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition
`
`fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`showing that dependent claims 2 and 7 are anticipated by Minami.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Obviousness over Minami
`in Combination with Additional Prior Art
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 3–6, 8, 9, 12–16, 19–26, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Minami in
`
`combination with additional prior art references. Pet. 26–60. To support
`
`these contentions, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts
`
`specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested purportedly in
`
`the references and why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`combine the references. Id. Petitioner also cites Mr. Clemens’s Declaration
`
`in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 53–74.
`
`1. Claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 12
`
`Petitioner does not contend that Kirita, Isou, Tamari, Brugger, He, or
`
`the Dome References cure the deficiency noted above with respect to
`
`independent claim 1. Pet. 26–53. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed
`
`
`12 We note that despite failing to address whether the prior art disclosed this
`limitation under a more reasonable construction, Petitioner discussed the
`purported breadth of “integrally attached” at length in the Claim
`Construction section of the Petition. Pet. 16–17.
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition fails to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`
`that dependent claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 12 are unpatentable over Minami in
`
`combination with Kirita, Isou, Tamari, Brugger, He, and the Dome
`
`References.
`
`2. Claims 13 and 23
`
`Independent claims 13 and 23 require that pressure tubing is integral
`
`with the pod. Ex. 1001, 15:53 (“which [pressure] tubing is integral with said
`
`pod”), 16:33 (“the pressure tubing being integral with said pod”). Petitioner
`
`contends that Minami discloses this feature. See Pet. 47–48, 51–52. For the
`
`same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we determine that the
`
`information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that this feature is
`
`disclosed by Minami.
`
`Petitioner does not contend that He or the Dome References cure this
`
`deficiency. Pet. 34–53. Therefore, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claims 13 and 23 are
`
`unpatentable over Minami in combination with He, as evidenced by the
`
`Dome References.
`
`3. Claims 14–16, 19–22, 24–26, and 28
`
`Petitioner does not contend that Utterberg, Kirita, or Sato cure the
`
`deficiency noted above with respect to independent claims 13 and 23. Pet.
`
`53–60. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we determine that
`
`the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that dependent claims
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`14–16, 19–22, 24–26, and 28 are unpatentable over Minami in combination
`
`with He, the Dome References, Utterberg, Kirita, and Sato.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–9, 12–16,
`
`19–26, and 28 of the ’414 patent are unpatentable.
`
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`19
`
`Case IPR2016-00744
`Patent 8,092,414 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Stephen Maebius
`smaebius@foley.com
`
`Michael Kaminski
`mkaminski@foley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Fleming
`mfleming@irell.com
`
`Benjamin Haber
`NiproIPR@irell.com