`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG
`Petitioners
`
`v .
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608
`____________
`
`Before the Honorable NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and ROBERT L.
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners maintain their scope objections (Papers 45, 51) to the new
`
`arguments and evidence Patent Owner improperly raises in its motion to exclude
`
`papers.
`
`Petitioners object to all of Patent Owner’s slides for failing to identify
`
`where in the papers any of these arguments were made or exhibits were cited.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 8 as improper new evidence and
`
`argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 15 for misstating the record
`
`because Dr. Buller testified that he has experience in surgical valve operations.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 16 to the extent that it states Dr.
`
`Buller has no experience with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), which is
`
`contrary to Dr. Buller’s testimony.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 20 for misstating the record to
`
`the extent it suggests Elliot, Thornton, and Cook are limited to AAA stent grafts by
`
`omitting key portions of the quoted disclosures.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 108 as improper new evidence
`
`and argument in the form of dictionary definitions never before cited in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response and never entered into evidence.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 109 as improper new evidence
`
`and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 110 as improper new evidence
`
`and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 111 as improper new evidence
`
`and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 112 as improper new evidence
`
`and argument in the form of dictionary definitions never before cited in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response and never entered into evidence.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 15, 2017
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan, Esq. (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady, Esq. (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e),
`
`the undersigned certifies
`
`that on
`
`December 15, 2017, a complete and entire copy of PETITIONERS’
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS has
`
`been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following addresses of record for Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`jennifer.sklenar@apks.com
`
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`
`edward.han@apks.com
`
`Dated: December 15, 2017
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan, Esq. (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady, Esq. (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`