throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 11
`Entered: July 27, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HOLOGIC, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`A. OVERVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc., FUJIFILM Corporation, and
`
`FUJIFILM Techno Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 11, 29, 33,
`
`and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,684 B2 (Ex. 1003, “the ’684 patent”). Pet.
`
`1. Hologic, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”), to which we authorized Petitioner to file a Reply (Paper
`
`10, “Pet. Reply”).
`
`Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the
`
`Petition, the Preliminary Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, for the reasons
`
`explained below, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to any of the challenged claims.
`
`Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.
`
`B.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’684 patent is involved in: In the Matter
`
`of Certain X-Ray Breast Imaging Devices and Components Thereof,
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1063 in the U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`and Hologic, Inc., v. FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc., Ltd., No. 3:17-
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`cv-1056 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
`
`Paper 1, 3.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`THE ’684 PATENT
`
`The ’684 patent relates to X-ray mammography using digital image
`
`receptors. Ex. 1003, 1:14–44. The ’684 patent acknowledges that
`
`conventional mammography systems “have provisions for partly or fully
`
`automating the selection of appropriate technic factors for an x-ray exposure,
`
`such as one or more of kVp (the x-ray tube accelerating potential), mA (x-
`
`ray tube current), and exposure time.” Id. at 1:45–49. The ’684 patent
`
`describes that
`
`one known approach for use with digital flat panel image
`receptors is to take a short, low x-ray dosage pre-exposure after
`the breast has been compressed, and then take an imaging
`exposure while the breast remains immobilized, using technic
`factors based on measurements taken with the same receptor in
`the pre-exposure.
`
`Id. at 1:56–61. The ’684 patent further describes that it is known to transmit
`
`and store mammography images. Id. at 2:16–20. However, the ’684 patent
`
`identifies that known processes are inefficient because “in many if not most
`
`cases, the breast takes up only a part of the image taken with flat panel
`
`digital receptors such that an imaginary rectangle that envelops the image of
`
`the breast is smaller than the field of view of the receptor.” Id. at 2:21–24.
`
`To address this drawback, the ’684 patent discloses “transmit[ting]
`
`and stor[ing] only a portion of the field of view” of the digital receptor by
`
`defining a “reduced field of view area 48” using various methods. Id. at
`
`5:58–6:10; see id. at Fig. 6, elements 52, 54, 56. In effect, the ’684 patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`discloses “crop[ping] the resulting breast image before transmitting and/or
`
`storing and/ or formatting it for transmission or storage.” Id. at 5:65–6:2.
`
`Reproduced below is Figure 5 of the ’684 patent.
`
`
`
`FIG. 5 illustrates selection of a decreased size mammography
`image for storage and transmission.
`
`Figure 5 depicts field of view 50 of flat panel x-ray image receptor
`
`12c along with breast image 46, which is within reduced field of view 48.
`
`Id. at 5:41–48.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 11, 29, 33, and 41 of the ’684 patent.
`
`Each of claims 11, 29, 33, and 41 are independent. Independent claim 11 is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims, and is reproduced below:
`
`11. A mammography method comprising:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`providing an image of a patient’s breast that occupies less
`than the entire field of view of an imaging receptor;
`
`automatically selecting an outline that encompasses the
`breast image to thereby define a reduced field of view image,
`wherein said outline is selected based on automatically derived
`information about a compression paddle selected to compress the
`breast for x-ray imaging, said outline encompasses an entirety of
`the patient's breast in the breast image, and the reduced field of
`view is defined based on said outline; and
`
`using said reduced field or view image for further
`processing, transmission, and/or archiving.
`
`E.
`
`EVIDENCE AND ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner challenges the claims on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`11 and 41
`29 and 33
`11 and 41
`29 and 33
`11 and 41
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b) Defreitas1
`§ 103(a) Defreitas and Niklason2
`§ 103(a) Muller3 and Admitted Prior Art4
`§ 103(a) Muller, Admitted Prior Art, and Niklason
`§ 103(a) Kawamata5 and Yamada6
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,443,949 B2, issued Oct. 28, 2008 (Ex. 1005;
`“Defreitas”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,872,828, issued Feb. 16, 1999 (Ex, 1006; “Niklason”).
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0038679 A1, published
`Nov. 8, 2001 (Ex. 1007; “Muller”).
`
`4 “‘Background’ of the ’684 patent describing characteristics of ‘typical[]’ X-
`ray mammography systems, and known proposals for improving upon such
`systems” (Ex. 1003; “Admitted Prior Art”).
`
`5 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. S64-46436, published
`February 20, 1989 (Ex. 1009; “Kawamata”).
`
`6 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H08-186762, published July
`16, 1996 (Ex. 1011; “the ’762 publication”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`Claims
`29 and 33
`
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Kawamata, Yamada, and Niklason
`
`Pet. 5–11. Petitioner relies upon a Declaration of Dr. Christopher Daft.
`
`Ex. 1001.
`
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation 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, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`
`(2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`approach). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we
`
`determine that only the following claim element needs explicit
`
`interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`Petitioner proposes clarifying the scope of two claim terms:
`
`“processing, transmission, and/or archiving,” as recited by claims 11 and 41,
`
`and “the reduced field of view is defined based on said [outline/rectangular
`
`region].” Pet. 14–15. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In interpreting claims, care must be exercised,
`
`as there is a fine line between interpreting claims in light of the
`
`specification, and reading limitations into the claims from the specification.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186–87 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, we discern that only the following
`
`terms require construction.
`
`1.
`
`“reduced field of view”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the term “‘reduced field of view’” should be
`
`construed as ‘field of view smaller than the entire field of view of an
`
`imaging receptor.’” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction. We find Petitioner’s construction to be consistent
`
`with the use of the term in the’684 patent. The ’684 patent discloses that
`
`“the image of the breast lies within a rectangle that is smaller than the field
`
`of view, as illustrated in FIG. 5, where the image of a breast is within a
`
`notional rectangular outline 48 (reduced field of view) that is much smaller
`
`than the field of view 50 of receptor 12c.” Ex. 1003 5:44–49. Thus, we
`
`construe “reduced field of view” as a “field of view smaller than the entire
`
`field of view of an imaging receptor.”
`
`2.
`
` “reduced field of view image”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the “reduced field of view image” should be
`
`construed as “[e]ncompass[ing] either pre- or post-acquisition reduction of
`
`the field of view.” Pet. 14. Petitioner asserts this construction is proper
`
`because “[t]he Challenged Claims’ language is agnostic on whether the
`
`‘reduced field of view image’ is defined before or after the image is
`
`acquired, and is broad enough to encompass either scenario.” Id. Petitioner
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`acknowledges the claims include some temporal order, i.e., “‘said reduced
`
`field of view image’ must exist before the
`
`processing/transmission/archiving,” is required by the claims, but Petitioner
`
`argues that the claims “do not delineate whether the field of view is reduced
`
`before acquiring the image or afterwards.” Id. at15.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees, asserting that “all Challenged Claims clearly
`
`require the ‘reduced field of view’ to be defined after a first image is
`
`‘provided’ (and therefore in existence)” (Prelim. Resp. 18), and thus, that the
`
`claims require an implicit order based on both logic and antecedent basis.
`
`Id. at 16–17 (citing Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research-in-Motion
`
`Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Wi- Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 811 F.3d
`
`455 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). More particularly, Patent Owner asserts that “[a]ll
`
`Challenged Claims require ‘providing an image of a patient’s breast that
`
`occupies less than the entire field of view of an imaging receptor’ and
`
`“automatically selecting a[n outline/rectangular region] that encompasses
`
`the breast image to thereby define a reduced field of view image[.]” Id. at
`
`17.
`
`As a general rule, “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an
`
`order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift
`
`Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2001).
`
`However, “a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as
`
`matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order
`
`written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.”
`
`Mformation Techs., 764 F.3d at 1398–99 (internal citation and quotation
`
`marks omitted); see also Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d
`
`1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that a claim that recites
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`“processing” an “electronic advertisement” necessarily indicates that “the
`
`creation of the ad must happen before the processing begins”). A method
`
`claim can also require a specific order implicitly, for example, if the
`
`language of a claimed step refers to the completed results of the prior step.
`
`E–Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Independent claim 117 is directed to a mammography method,
`
`comprising the following steps in the order as written : (1) “providing an
`
`image of a patient’s breast”; (2) “selecting an outline that encompasses the
`
`breast image to . . . define a reduced field of view image”; and (3) “using
`
`said reduced field of view image for further processing, transmission, and/or
`
`archiving.” See Ex. 1003, 7:26–38; see id. at 9:18–30; 9:44–57; 10:36–49.
`
`The claim term “an image of a patient’s breast” recited in step 1
`
`provides antecedent basis for “the breast image” recited in step 2. Claim 11
`
`further recites that the recited “image of a patient’s breast” “occupies less
`
`than the entire field of view of an imaging receptor.” Step 2 of claim 11
`
`recites “automatically selecting an outline that encompasses the breast image
`
`to thereby define a reduced field of view image.” Step 2 is performed after
`
`step 1 because step 2 requires selecting an outline from the image recited in
`
`step 1. See Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc., 152 F.3d
`
`1368, 1375–76, (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that the steps of a method claim
`
`had to be performed in their written order because each subsequent step
`
`referenced something indicating the prior step had been performed).
`
`Furthermore, step 2 is a product of step 1—a breast image is provided before
`
`
`7 Although differences exists between claims 11, 29, 33, and 41, these
`difference do not alter the order of the steps.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`“a reduced field of view image” can be defined. See also E–Pass Techs.,
`
`473 F.3d at 1222; see also Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Elecs. Corp., 181
`
`F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that the claim language itself
`
`indicated that the steps had to be performed in the order written because the
`
`second step required the alignment of a second structure with a first structure
`
`formed by the prior step).
`
`To interpret otherwise, it would mean the term “an image of a
`
`patient’s breast” recited in step 1 refers to the same breast image recited in
`
`step 2.8 Furthermore, step 1 would have no relationship with the other steps
`
`in the mammography method. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that
`
`step 2 can be performed “before or after the image is acquired,” as Petitioner
`
`asserts. See Microsoft Corp., v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`
`(Fed.Cir.2015) (Claims should not be construed “so broadly that [their]
`
`constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.”
`
`The language of claim 11 also requires the remaining step 3 to be
`
`performed in the order written. Notably, step 3 necessarily occurs after step
`
`2 because step 3 uses the “reduced field of view image” defined in step 2 for
`
`“further processing, transmission, and/or archiving,” as recited by claims 11
`
`and 41, and “tomosynthesis processing and transmission,” as recited by
`
`claims 29 and 33. See Loral Fairchild, 181 F.3d at 1321.
`
`
`8 We note that throughout the prosecution history of the ’684 patent, the
`Examiner made approximately 37 objections to the claims for “informalities,
`which appear to be minor draft errors including lack of antecedent basis and
`grammatical problems” (see Ex. 1004, 84–85, 234–235), but did not identify
`any issue related to the aforementioned claims.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`The Specification also supports the recited steps being performed in
`
`the order written. For example, the ’684 patent discloses that its
`
`mammography system uses a relatively large field-of-view receptor, but is
`
`able “[t]o save on transmitting and storing the breast image” by discarding
`
`information outside of the reduced field of view. Ex. 1003, 5:41–54. The
`
`’684 patent further discloses, “[i]f there is any significant information
`
`outside outline 48, only that information 55 can be attached to the
`
`information for the image portion inside outline 48.” Id. at 5:54–57. The
`
`’684 patent still further discloses that “[t]he size and position of paddle 12e
`
`can be automatically determined, and the result used to in effect crop the
`
`resulting breast image before transmitting and/or storing and/or formatting it
`
`for transmission or storage.” Id. at 5:65–6:2.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 11, 29, 33, and 41
`
`require the recited steps be performed in the order written. We are not
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that the claims are “agnostic on whether
`
`the ‘reduced field of view image’ is defined before or after the image is
`
`acquired, and is broad enough to encompass either scenario” (Pet. 14). We
`
`agree with Patent Owner that the claims “require the ‘reduced field of view’
`
`to be defined after a first image is ‘provided’ (and therefore in existence).”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 18.
`
`3.
`
`Remaining Claim Terms
`
`We have given all remaining claim terms their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, and determine that it is not necessary to make that meaning
`
`explicit for any other term. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 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.”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Regarding the level of skill in the art, Petitioner asserts
`
`[a] person of ordinary skill in the field as of the ’684
`Patent’s effective filing date would have a Master’s Degree or
`Ph.D[.] in physics, electrical engineering, or a related field and
`would also have at least 2 years of experience in the field of
`medical imaging. Ex. 1001, ¶ 42. Alternatively, someone with a
`bachelor’s degree and at least 7 years of experience in the field
`of medical imaging could also be considered one of ordinary skill
`in the art.
`
`Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 42). Patent Owner disagrees to some extent
`
`with Petitioner’s assessment, but states “there is no meaningful difference
`
`between these definitions for purposes of the present proceeding.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 15.
`
`In view of Patent Owner’s acknowledgement, that there is no
`
`meaningful difference between its definition of one of ordinary skill and that
`
`proposed by Petitioner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We also note that
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the
`
`distinctions between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of
`
`one of ordinary skill would not alter our decision to deny institution in the
`
`present proceeding.
`
`A. ANTICIPATION BY DEFREITAS – GROUND 1
`
`III. PATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 41 are anticipated by Defreitas.
`
`Pet. 26–34 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003, 1005, 1019). Patent Owner responds to
`
`Petitioner’s assertions. Prelim. Resp. 18–30 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003, 1005,
`
`1007, 1016, 1018, 1022, 2001).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Defreitas
`
`Defreitas is directed to a digital mammography system that employs
`
`flat panel receptors. Ex. 1005, 1:8–10. More particularly, Defreitas
`
`discloses that its system employs “compression paddles that match both the
`
`size and position of the patient’s breast relative to the proximal edge of a
`
`digital x-ray image receptor so as to improve image quality, patient comfort
`
`and the ability of the health professional to position the breast optimally for
`
`imaging.” Id. at 2:34–39. Defreitas further discloses “automated
`
`collimation control” that is “responsive to information regarding one or
`
`more of the size of the paddle, its location along the beam, its location
`
`relative to the proximal edge of the receptor, a desired field of view,
`
`magnification parameters, and the like.” Id. at 3:5–11. Defreitas also
`
`discloses, “[a]ny desired further lateral adjustment can be made by sliding
`
`paddle 2 along the direction of the proximal edge 5a, before or during
`
`compressing the breast for taking an image.” Id. at 5:17–20.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claims 11 and 41
`
`Petitioner asserts that Defreitas anticipates claims 11 and 41 of the
`
`’684 patent. Pet. 26–34 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003, 1005, 1019). Patent Owner
`
`disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 18–30 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003, 1005, 1007, 1016,
`
`1018, 1022, 2001). In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner does
`
`not adequately establish that Defreitas discloses a “reduced field of view
`
`image,” as required by claims 11 and 41. Prelim. Resp. 18–28; see also id.
`
`at 1–5. We agree with Patent Owner.
`
`Independent claims 11 and 41 recite, “automatically selecting [an
`
`outline/a rectangular region] that encompasses the breast image to thereby
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`define a reduced field of view image.” To address this limitation, Petitioner
`
`asserts
`
`Defreitas discloses the use of collimators to restrict the x-ray
`illumination (and therefore the resulting image) to a defined area
`that is smaller than the full field of the digital receptor—
`preferably, it is “just large enough to show the image of breast 3,
`or at least a selected part thereof”—thereby defining a reduced
`field of view image encompass[ing] the breast image.”
`
`Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:26–35, 1:38–44, 1:67–2:7, 3:54–64, 2:40–45,
`
`3:41–46; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 31–32, 75–76). Petitioner also asserts that this
`
`collimation “can be achieved automatically using an auto-collimation
`
`control to adjust the collimation of beam 30.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`4:19–20, 2:40–45, Fig. 2; Ex. 1001 ¶ 79). Petitioner further asserts “that the
`
`breast image defined by this automatic collimation process ‘is typically
`
`rectangular.’” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:61; Ex. 1001 ¶ 79).
`
`In response, Patent Owner asserts that “collimation alone does not—
`
`and cannot—result in a ‘reduced field of view image’ within the meaning of
`
`the ’684 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner acknowledges that
`
`“collimation directs X-ray beams to a specific area,” but argues that “it does
`
`not prevent the digital detector from picking up data in areas outside the area
`
`of collimation.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1022, 5; Ex., 1018, 3).
`
`According to Patent Owner, “Fujifilm’s expert, Dr. Daft, has admitted that
`
`there [are] data received by the portion of the detector outside the field of
`
`collimation.” Prelim. Resp. 4, 26–27 (citing Ex. 2001, 582:22–585:11,
`
`588:24–590:10; 635:25–6:37:18).
`
`Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assessment of Dr. Daft’s
`
`testimony. Pet. Reply 1–5 (citing Exs. 1005, 1011, 1027, 2001). Instead,
`
`Petitioner asserts that Dr. Daft
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`explained again that collimation creates a reduced field of view
`image (Ex. 2001, 583:16–584:4, 636:3–6); the “image is only in
`the portion of the detector that was illuminated by the x-rays,”
`(Id., 589:5–7, see also 584:19–23, 589:12–20, 636:14–15), and
`the rest of the detector only receives noise generated by the
`circuitry or scatter—“meaningless numbers”—not an image (Id.,
`583:21–584:1, 589:8–21, 636:14–17).
`
`Pet. Reply 2. Thus, Petitioner asserts that “Dr. Daft’s testimony confirms
`
`that collimation, as taught in the prior art, ‘define[s] a reduced field of view
`
`image[]’” (Pet. Reply 1 (emphasis omitted)) because Dr. Daft testified that
`
`“‘there is no image created outside of the collimated x-ray beam.’” Pet.
`
`Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1027, 133 Q. 403). We do not agree.
`
`We find the full-context of Dr. Daft’s statement to be relevant. Dr.
`
`Daft stated
`
`[i]n the scenario described by Defreitas and other prior art, the
`mammography system provides a collimated area that is some
`subset of the image receptor’s area. The diagnostic image is
`confined to that collimated area. Outside of that area, the
`detector will receive scattered radiation and noise; there is no
`diagnostic value to the information in that area. So there is no
`image created outside of the collimated x-ray beam because there
`is no clinical value to that area. It is only noise and scatter:
`random numbers with no value.
`
`Ex. 1027, 133 Q. 403. Dr. Daft’s testimony fails to support Petitioner’s
`
`assertion that “collimation . . . ‘define[s] a reduced field of view image[]’”
`
`(Pet. Reply 1 (emphasis omitted); see Pet. 28–30). Dr. Daft’s testimony
`
`identifies that it is “[t]he diagnostic image [that] is confined to that
`
`collimated area” (Ex. 1027, 133 Q. 403), but on this record, Petitioner has
`
`failed to establish that “[t]he diagnostic image” constitutes a “reduced field
`
`of view image” (emphasis added) within the meaning of each of the
`
`challenged claims. Dr. Daft further states, “there is no image created outside
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`of the collimated x-ray beam because there is no clinical value to that area.”
`
`Ex. 1027, 133 Q. 403; see also id. at 134 Q. 404. Regardless of whether
`
`there is “clinical value” or not, Dr. Daft acknowledges that the detector does,
`
`in fact, “receive scattered radiation and noise” (id.), which we agree with
`
`Patent Owner, would generate pixel data. Prelim. Resp. 23–25 (citing Exs.
`
`1007, 1018, 1022). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “collimation
`
`alone does not—and cannot—result in a “reduced field of view image”
`
`within the meaning of the ’684 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 1 (emphasis added).
`
`In this context, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not shown
`
`sufficiently that Defreitas discloses a “reduced field of view image” created
`
`by
`
`a process whereby a region of a first image (i.e., “entire field of
`view image”) is defined and the pixel data from sections of that
`first image outside that region (i.e., the “reduced field of view”)
`are excluded or discarded (e.g., cropped) from the first image to
`form a second image (i.e., “reduced field of view image”).
`
`Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:65–6:2, 7:26–38) (emphases
`
`omitted). More particularly, Patent Owner argues, “Defreitas simply does
`
`not discuss the removal or exclusion of any data outside the reduced field of
`
`view and therefore could not be describing a ‘reduced field of view image.’”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22. We agree with Patent Owner.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that “[a]lthough collimation will restrict
`
`a majority of the X-ray beam to one region of the digital detector, the
`
`machine will still read out data from the entire area of the detector.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1022, 5). Defreitas “employ[s] compression paddles
`
`that match both the size and position of the patient’s breast” and “provide[s]
`
`automated collimation control that changes x-ray beam collimation in
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`accordance with one or more of the size and position of the compression
`
`paddle and of the breast.” Ex. 1005, 2:34–35, 2:40–43. As Patent Owner
`
`points out, however, “Defreitas describes a process of taking a [cranio-
`
`caudal] image, thereby generating a breast image that is ‘typically
`
`rectangular,’ but this image undergoes no processing that would remove any
`
`image data.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:54–67).
`
`Furthermore, as discussed above, we determine that claims 11, 29, 33,
`
`and 41 require the recited steps be performed in the order written. As we
`
`noted in our discussion of claim 11, defining a reduced field of view image
`
`by automatically selecting an outline that encompasses the breast image in
`
`the first step is different from providing an image of the patient’s breast that
`
`occupies less than the entire field of view in the second step. Turning to
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of Defrietas, it is unclear how the “collimated area that
`
`is some subset of the image receptor’s area” (see Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex.
`
`1027, 133 Q. 403)), which Petitioner asserts “define[s] a reduced field of
`
`view image[]” (Pet. Reply 1), as recited in the second step, is different from
`
`the “image of a patient’s breast that occupies less than the entire field of
`
`view of an imaging receptor,” as provided in the first step of each of the
`
`challenged claims. See Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:26–35, 1:38–44,
`
`1:67–2:7, 2:40–45, 3:41–46, 3:54–64, Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 31–32, 75–76).
`
`Petitioner relies on the description in Defreitas of “the use of
`
`collimators to restrict the x-ray illumination (and therefore the resulting
`
`image) to a defined area that is smaller than the full field of the digital
`
`receptor” (Pet. 29; see also id. at 28–29) as disclosing both the “image of a
`
`patient’s breast” provided in the first step and the “reduced field of view
`
`image” defined in the second step of each of the challenged claims. For this
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`reason, agree with Patent Owner that the image formed from collimation in
`
`Defreitas is not the same as the “reduced field of view image” required by
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Defreitas discloses a “reduced field of view
`
`image,” and therefore has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`its assertion that Defreitas anticipates claims 11 and 41.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS OVER DEFREITAS AND NIKLASON – GROUND 2
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 29 and 339 are obvious over Defreitas
`
`and Niklason. Pet. 34–40 (citing Exs. 1001, 1004, 1006, 1020). Patent
`
`Owner responds to Petitioner’s assertions. Prelim. Resp. 30–35 (citing Exs.
`
`1003, 1006, 1020, 1022).
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Niklason
`
`Niklason is directed to a “method for tomosynthesis x-ray imaging.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 2:24–25. Niklason discloses that its “x-ray source and detector are
`
`disposed on opposite sides of an object region disposed about an object
`
`plane parallel to the image plane” and “[a]s the source moves along the arc,
`
`the detector generates for a succession of points along the arc, a
`
`corresponding succession of image data sets, each set being representative of
`
`the intensity of x-rays incident on the detector for the then current position
`
`
`9 Claims 29 and 33 are substantially similar to claims 11 and 41. The
`primary difference between the two sets of claims lies in the last limitation
`of each of the challenged claims. Claims 11 and 41 require using the
`reduced field of view image for further processing, transmission, and/or
`archiving, whereas claims 29 and 33 specify that the image will be used for
`“tomosynthesis processing and transmission.”
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00538
`Patent 7,123,684 B2
`
`
`of the source.” Id. at 2:34–38. After processing, Niklason discloses that
`
`“[t]he resultant image data thus corresponds in form to that produced by a
`
`conventional linear motion . . . so that conventional techniques may be used
`
`to produce a final representation of the x-ray absorption of the object
`
`region.” Id. at 2:45–49. Niklason further discloses that tomosynthesis
`
`images can be transmitted from its imaging system to a workstation. Id. at
`
`7:42–46.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claims 29 and 33
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 29 and 33 are obvious over the
`
`combination of Defreitas and Niklason. Pet. 34–40. Petitioner asserts
`
`[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Defreitas (disclosing elements [a]–
`[f] of claims 29 and 33) with the teachings of Niklason
`(disclosing element [g] of claims 29 and 33) in such a way that
`the resulting combination would yield the entire alleged
`invention of claims 29 and 33.
`
`Pet. 37. However, Petitioner does not allege that Niklason addresses the
`
`deficiencies identified in connection with Defreitas, as discussed above. In
`
`particular, Petitioner does not explain how the addition of Niklason would
`
`have rendered obvious a mammography method including the first step of
`
`“providing an image of a patient’s breast that occupies less than the entire
`
`field of view of an imaging receptor” and then, as a second step,
`
`“automatically selecting an [outline/rectangular region] that encompasses the
`
`breast image to thereby

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket