`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SANDBOX MEDICAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEOTECH PRODUCTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 6, 2020
`____________
`
`Before BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
`JASON W. MELVIN Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`VINCENT MCGEARY, ESQUIRE
`McGeary Cukor
`7 Dumont Place
`Morristown, NJ 07960
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`MICHAEL A. DINARDO, ESQUIRE
`Kelly & Kelley, LLP
`6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1650
`Woodland Hills, CA 91367
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, February 6,
`2020, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`THE CLERK: All rise.
`JUDGE WOOD: Please be seated. Good afternoon.
`We are here for oral argument in IPR 2019-00246. My name is
`Judge Wood. With me on my right is Judge Marschall, and on
`my left Judge Melvin. Will counsel for Petitioner please
`introduce themselves?
`MR. MCGEARY: My name is Vince McGeary from
`the law firm McGeary Cukor for the Petitioner, and with me is
`my colleague Michael Cukor.
`JUDGE WOOD: Thank you, Mr. McGeary. And for
`Patent Owner?
`MR. DINARDO: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Michael DiNardo of Kelly & Kelley on behalf of the Patent
`Owner Neotech Products, LLC.
`JUDGE WOOD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. DiNardo. Per
`the hearing order, each side has 30 minutes of total argument
`time. Petitioner will proceed first with its case and may reserve
`rebuttal time. Then Patent Owner will proceed with its case and
`may reserve sur-rebuttal time. Petitioner, Mr. McGeary, does
`Petitioner have demonstrative exhibits for today?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`MR. MCGEARY: We do, Your Honor. We have some
`demonstratives. We’re not using all of them, we don’t think.
`But we have handed them over to the court reporter and
`previously submitted them by email.
`JUDGE WOOD: Did you submit them to the trial’s
`email address?
`MR. MCGEARY: ptabhearings@uspto.gov.
`JUDGE WOOD: Hm. Okay. I’m not sure we received
`them. Any, Patent Owner’s counsel, do you have objections to
`Petitioner’s demonstrative exhibits?
`MR. DINARDO: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WOOD: Do you have hard copies of the
`demonstratives?
`MR. MCGEARY: We only brought two hard copies,
`one of which we handed over. This is the one I was going to use,
`but I can hand them up for someone’s use.
`JUDGE WOOD: I don’t need a hard copy of it.
`MR. MCGEARY: They’ll all be on the screen. And
`then we can resubmit them again right after the hearing, if that
`would be helpful.
`JUDGE WOOD: That would be helpful, thank you.
`MR. MCGEARY: Yeah. We’ll do that right away.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`MR. DINARDO: And I did receive a copy of the email
`that Petitioner sent and it appeared to me. So I don’t know why
`Patent Office wouldn’t have received them.
`JUDGE WOOD: Okay. Thanks. All right. So any
`questions before we proceed?
`MR. MCGEARY: None from Petitioner.
`MR. DINARDO: None from Patent Owner.
`JUDGE WOOD: All right. Mr. McGeary, you can
`start when you are ready. Do you wish to reserve rebuttal time?
`MR. MCGEARY: Yes, if I could reserve ten minutes
`of rebuttal time?
`JUDGE WOOD: That’s fine.
`MR. MCGEARY: If it may please the Board, my
`intention is to proceed by spending a minute or two on an
`introduction, and then to discuss the 050 Patent, the salient
`embodiment, and then address the basis of the invalidity in the
`institution decision and in the petition, and then move to a claim
`construction issue that we feel is the principal issue that was
`raised in the Patent Owner response.
`With that, I’d like to introduce Reed McCarty. Mr.
`McCarty is a founding partner of Sandbox Medical, the
`Petitioner in this action. It is a company that creates medical
`supplies, mostly for babies. At the time of the petition, it had
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`approximately 12 employees. One of the products, if we can
`bring up Slide 20, is a nasal aspirator. This was submitted
`during the course of the trial. On the left, Exhibit 1029 is
`pictured and that is a suction catheter. That is a portion of the
`device that would fit in the nose of a baby or a patient. On the
`right is the same catheter attached to a controller device. And
`you can see on this device that the ribbed end fits to a suction
`source and there is an air vent on top that’s used to control the
`suction fit.
`There’s currently, as the Board may be aware, a patent
`infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts.
`That action is currently stayed pending the outcome of this IPR.
`And it relates to a product like this and the 050 Patent. So at
`this point I’ll turn to the 050 Patent, and Michael, can you bring
`up Slide 2?
`This is from Exhibit 1001, which is the challenged
`patent. It basically depicts a nasal aspirator on the left with the
`catheter attached. So on the left-hand side what’s designated as
`21 would attach to a vacuum source. 30A defines an air inlet and
`on the right-hand side designated as 10 is the suction catheter.
`And in cross-section it appears in Figure 2. A couple of things
`about this figure that will be salient to the upcoming discussion
`is the exterior profile of Figure 2 and the suction catheter, which
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`as the Board can see has two sections with tapered angles. One
`of those angles is called Beta on the reference and the other is
`called Alpha. And as we proceed down to the claim construction
`issue, there is a dispute as to what those angles pertain to which
`I will reach momentarily. Michael, if you could bring up Slide
`5?
`
`So of course we can’t read the entirety of Claim 1 off
`this slide. It’s too small. But I wanted to put it up there just to
`show sort of the length of the claim and to point out that in
`simplified discussion, really what this claim is directed to is a
`nasal aspirator, similar to what was shown in Figure 1 and 2 with
`the catheter already attached. The limitation that we’re going to
`be talking about mostly on my part is going to be Limitation F,
`which I’ll get to in a moment. But I wanted to give the Board an
`idea of what was in this claim.
`So at this point, I want to proceed to the petition and
`the institution decision and what was presented to the Board to
`institute this trial. So if we could have Slide 7?
`So this is Exhibit 1003. It shows Figure 1, and as the
`Board can see it looks very similar to what was shown in Figures
`1 and 2 in the 050 Patent. The 234 Patent, or Exhibit 1003, the
`Jackson reference, that was filed in 1969. So that was a full 33
`years or so before the 050 Patent was filed. And in overview
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`you can see that it already has a suction source attached to a
`finger controller for regulating suction flow, and it already has a
`suction catheter that has a remarkably similar profile to what we
`saw in Figure 2 of the 050 Patent. And if we can bring up Slide
`8? In our petition, we showed with color coding the primary,
`secondary, and tertiary sections of the suction catheter. And
`these are limitations that appear in the claim. So in the
`institution decision, the institution decision found a reason that
`the Jackson reference already showed by itself the one piece first
`tubular body portion, which would be the controller; the one
`piece second tubular body portion, which would be the catheter;
`the air inlet; the primary, secondary, and tertiary sections, and
`the primary section fitting telescopically to the first tubular body
`portion; the secondary section extending between the primary
`and the tertiary sections at a relatively greater taper angle; it
`showed that the length of the tertiary section was greater than,
`substantially greater than the length of the secondary section;
`and it also showed a device maximum diameter located
`approximate to the side inlet. So Jackson showed many, many of
`the limitations in that long claim. There were a few that we
`presented other prior art on. And if we could go to the next
`slide, Michael, which is Slide 9.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`This is the Kerwin reference. This is another suction
`device, Exhibit 1004. And I would direct the Board’s attention
`to lead line 18. This shows the suction tip. And if we can go to
`Slide 10?
`
`This is it in profile and the Board can see that in
`Figure 2 in the Kerwin reference, the suction tip has a tapered
`tertiary section. It also has a tapered secondary section, and has
`a squared off primary section as well. So it has a very similar
`profile. If we can go to the next slide, Slide 11?
`So the Kerwin reference, Exhibit 1004. Also showed
`that it could be made of a resilient plastic, bendable material.
`And in an institution decision, again on page 13, the institution
`decision found that there was a reasonable basis to conclude that
`Kerwin had the feature of a tapered tertiary section and made of
`flexible material.
`The institution decision and the petition also showed
`another exhibit which we’re not going to put a slide up for, but
`that was Exhibit 1009. And that reference also showed a tube, a
`flexible piece of plastic tube fitted over a fitting such that it
`would create a similar profile and completely made of plastic.
`So it was shown in two references and that also appeared on page
`15 of the institution decision. The claim contained even more
`limitations regarding to the translucency or transparency of
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`different parts of the suction catheter, and that of course was
`also shown in other prior art references and found in the
`institution decision. And Mr. Sherman, the Petitioner’s expert
`who designed in this area, in 2002 opined that all of these
`features were well known in the art and that they were put
`together in a predictable fashion to achieve a predictable result.
`So at this point I’d like to turn to the claim
`construction issue. And Michael, if you can bring up Slide 6?
`This is the Limitation F that I referred to before. The Patent
`Owner’s response raised an issue with respect to the Board’s
`claim construction of the relatively lesser taper angle and the
`relatively greater taper angle. So I’ll read it so it’s clear what
`we’re talking about: “said tertiary section being flexible and
`tapering towards the tip at a relatively lesser taper angle, and
`said secondary section extending between said primary and
`tertiary sections at a relatively greater taper angle.” We
`proposed, Petitioner proposed and/or adopted for the purposes of
`the institution decision a claim construction on page 7 that
`stated, paraphrasing, that the angle of the tertiary section is less
`than the angle of the secondary section. That’s for relatively
`lesser taper angle. And for relatively greater taper angle, it was
`the angle of the secondary section which is greater than the angle
`of the tertiary section. So it was a very basic claim construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`for that and the Board applied the broadest reasonable
`interpretation for this IPR. Which as we know when it was
`stated in the institution decision, is the interpretation that is
`consistent, the broadest interpretation that is consistent with the
`specification.
`In the Patent Owner response, the Patent Owner is
`urging a claim construction that the relatively lesser taper angle
`refers to the angle of the inside diameter of the tertiary section
`of the tubular portion, which is less than the relatively greater
`taper angle that refers to the angle of the inside diameter of the
`secondary section of the second tubular section. And that’s at
`page seven of the Patent Owner’s response. And so you can see
`the stark difference between the two constructions. The
`construction that was used in the institution decision does not
`limit itself to the inside diameter of the tube. It has no reference
`to it. And we want to demonstrate now that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, the most consistent interpretation is
`the one that was adopted for the institution decision. Michael,
`can you give me Slide 13?
`So in this demonstrative we juxtaposed Figure 2,
`which referenced the taper angles as Alpha and Beta, with the
`specification language that deals with that figure. And the first
`thing I’d like to do is just blow up the portion of Figure 2 so we
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`can actually see what we’re talking about here. So Beta, it’s
`much easier to see. It defines an angle that is between the
`horizontal of the exterior wall of the primary section with the
`exterior wall of the secondary section. Alpha, it’s a little more
`difficult to see because of where the arrow is positioned. But
`again, the horizontal line is a line that’s projected out of where
`the secondary and tertiary sections meet, and the angle is further
`defined by the exterior wall of the tertiary section. You can see
`that the arrow does not stop at the inside part of the wall. It just
`happens to laying on a cross hatch line so it’s a little blurred out.
`
`
`But so there’s no mistake, if we can go to the next
`slide, which is Slide 14, this is Dr. Moore from Exhibit 2001.
`This was his direct testimony in his declaration and this is Patent
`Owner’s expert when discussing the taper angle limitations. And
`what you can see here is that Dr. Moore writes, referring
`specifically to Figure 2 of the 050 Patent, taper angle of the
`secondary and tertiary sections of the second tubular body
`portion are illustrated using the references Alpha and Beta.
`While this Figure 2 illustrates Alpha and Beta relative to the
`exterior of the second tubular body, I believe that such was done
`for purposes of improved readability because of the relative scale
`of the drawing figure and closeness of the interior lines.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`So what’s happening here is that Dr. Moore is
`conceding, as I think any reasonable person must, that the
`relatively lesser and greater taper angles of Alpha and Beta refer
`to the exterior profile of the secondary tubular portion. And
`even in the portion that begins with while, he’s still admitting
`that the Patent Owner purposely drafted the figure this way. We
`can dispute whether he drafted this way because of the reasons
`that Dr. Moore speculates, but the fact of the matter is that it’s
`not disputed by Dr. Moore that we’re referring to the exterior
`profile of the second tubular body portion. We didn’t leave it
`there, however.
`If we can go to Slide 25, we also covered this at Dr.
`Moore’s deposition. This is Exhibit 1027. We have the
`transcript and lined pages there, and we asked Dr. Moore. In the
`graphic that’s shown here, at that point I was showing him
`Figure 2 of the 050 Patent. The Beta taper angle is actually
`depicting the taper angle formed by the outside wall? He says,
`yes, that appears to be the case. And then the same is true of
`Alpha, and he answers yes.
`So there is no factual dispute that the Figure 2 and
`Alpha and Beta are referring to the exterior taper angles of the
`second tubular body portion. If we could bring back up Slide
`13? So here’s the highlighted language again from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`specification. It’s specifically referring to a relatively lesser
`taper angle, Alpha, and relatively greater taper angle, Beta. And
`so it’s referring to the designations in the figure, which are
`showing exterior taper angles. So under the standard of broadest
`reasonable interpretation, the interpretation that’s consistent, the
`broadest interpretation that’s consistent with the specification is
`the claim construction that the Board adopted in the institution
`decision and would not limit the claim to defining the interior
`tapers of the secondary tubular portion.
`And I would also like just real quick to bring the
`claim language up again, which I believe was -- let’s bring up
`that Limitation F, Michael, if you can. Yes, go back to that.
`There it is. So I would like the Board to notice that the
`relatively lesser taper angle terminology and relatively greater
`tape angle terminology is taken right from that portion of the
`specification that’s referring to Figure 2. So you have consistent
`language in the claim describing consistent structure using
`consistent words, and we’re very clearly referring to a piece of
`structure that’s on the exterior of the second tubular body
`portion.
`
`So it’s our submission that this is the principal issue
`in the case. And if the Board were to conclude that the claim
`construction that it gave in the institution decision and that was
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`given in the petition is the correct one, then it should also
`conclude that all the claims are invalid for the precise reasons
`that were set forth in the institution decision.
`So at this point I’ve concluded my prepared
`presentation for this part. I’m prepared to answer any questions
`that the Board may have at this time. Otherwise, I can reserve
`my remaining time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE MARSCHALL: Does the dispute regarding the
`level of ordinary skill in the art play into the merits in a way that
`our decision on that issue could tip the outcome?
`MR. MCGEARY: The level of ordinary skill in the art
`plays into the issue of the claim construction. Dr. Moore’s
`higher level of skill in the art was applied to aspects of the
`specification where he concluded that if you understood solid
`body mechanics and fluid dynamics that you, that sort of person
`of ordinary skill would conclude that the claim language actually
`referred to the interior taper angle. So in my view, if you were
`to reject the level of skill that Dr. Moore brings to the reading of
`the claims, you would reject the underlying rationale for the
`claim construction that they were positing. However, and to be
`fair it was Patent Owner’s position that even if you adopted the
`level of skill that was set forth in the institution decision, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`that we proposed, that the claim construction would come out in
`their favor. I hope that answers your question.
`JUDGE WOOD: If we adopt Patent Owner’s level of
`ordinary skill, would we necessarily be adopting their claim
`construction --
`MR. MCGEARY: No, you would not necessarily be
`adopting their claim construction. And that’s for two reasons.
`Number one, claim construction is a matter of, is interpretation
`as a matter of law. So although it’s as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill, the appropriate approach to claim construction is
`to ask whether or not the terms have a plain meaning consistent
`with the specification to a person of ordinary skill. And in this
`case, this person of ordinary skill is using that skill to read into
`the specification relationships that aren’t there. So you could
`adopt that level of skill and still determine that the claim
`construction is the one that’s in the institution decision.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Does a tubular body portion imply
`constant wall thickness?
`MR. MCGEARY: There is nothing in the patent that
`would say that the tubular body portion implies a constant wall
`thickness. It’s not discussed either way. And as far as I
`remember, no one gave testimony on that issue.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE WOOD: All right. Thank you, Mr. McGeary.
`You will have 12 minutes for rebuttal. Mr. DiNardo? When you
`are ready.
`MR. DINARDO: I just need to hook up the ELMO.
`JUDGE WOOD: All right. Take your time. Do you
`wish to reserve sur-rebuttal time?
`MR. DINARDO: I do. I would like to reserve ten
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE WOOD: Start when you are ready.
`MR. DINARDO: Thank you, Your Honors. Good
`afternoon. As counsel raised during his presentation, Patent
`Owner also believes that the critical issue is how the claim
`language is interpreted as referencing the greater and lesser taper
`angles mentioned therein. It’s Patent Owner’s position that the
`claim language itself does not specify whether it is the exterior
`or the interior tapering. So we submit that the claim language
`addresses both the interior and the exterior as the differences.
`As Dr. Moore pointed out in his declaration, the
`disclosure and the claim language is concerned with not only the
`exterior shape of the device, but how the aspirated material flows
`without obstruction from the tip to the vacuum source. And as
`counsel referenced multiple times, in Figure 2 of the 050 Patent,
`yes, it does show, it does illustrate the angles Alpha and Beta on
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`the exterior of the surface. As Dr. Moore opined, that was done
`for ease of viewing in the scale given in Figure 2.
`Patent Owner notes that the angles Alpha and Beta,
`while shown on the exterior of Figure 2, they were shown on a
`cross-section of that second tubular body portion. They were not
`illustrated on Figure 1, which is a solid body not showing the
`interior. And as shown in Figure 2 and indicated by Judge
`Melvin with his question, the wall thickness illustrated in Figure
`2 is shown as a constant thickness.
`Patent Owner doesn’t submit that the fact that it’s
`defined as a tubular body portion means that it has got a constant
`wall thickness, because there were other tubular bodies shown in
`the prior art that did not have a constant wall thickness. As
`shown in this Demonstrative 2, right below Figure 2 of the 050
`Patent, we present two illustrations from Exhibit 103, the
`Jackson Patent, showing Figures 4 and 6. Four represents a
`cross-section of the figure illustrated, shown by counsel during
`his presentation, Figure 1, which indicates that the portion of the
`body coming into the suction control source has a negative taper,
`meaning it goes from a wider angle to a narrower angle as it goes
`in. And the highlighted figure, the highlighted illustration of
`Figure 1 that counsel presented, again, only referenced the
`exterior angles and Patent Owner notes that the portion identified
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`as Figure 3 has no taper angle. That is a constant thickness of
`tube extending out of the device in the Jackson Patent.
`And so turning to Patent Owner’s Demonstrative 1, I
`point first to the claim language. And while counsel referenced
`Paragraph F of Claim 1, Patent Owner submits that it is taking
`the language out of context, ignoring all of the other limitations
`of the claim, specifically those that incorporate the interior
`diameter profile. First starting with Paragraph C, it defines the
`second tubular body portion as having a flexible tip portion with
`an entrance of reduced area. It then goes on to say in
`referencing the side inlet that that is to control suction of fluid
`from the tip portion entrance through said second and first
`tubular portions.
`JUDGE WOOD: So what does entrance of reduced
`area, a tip portion having an entrance of reduced area mean?
`MR. DINARDO: That it’s the smallest area in the
`vacuum tube portion going to the vacuum source.
`JUDGE WOOD: So the smallest entrance or cross-
`sectional area --
`MR. DINARDO: Yes.
`JUDGE WOOD: -- if you will, of any portion of the
`
`device?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`MR. DINARDO: That is according to Dr. Moore the
`understanding of, would be the understanding of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, that having that tip of reduced area
`increases the strength of the vacuum that the device would have
`to aspirate the material.
`JUDGE WOOD: I guess my question is, if the area
`was constant except for one enlarged interior cross-sectional
`area, would that be encompassed by the language?
`MR. DINARDO: Well --
`JUDGE WOOD: I mean, in other words, can it be
`reduced as compared to any particular cross-section of the
`device?
`
`MR. DINARDO: I believe it’s reduced as to the cross-
`sectional area of the second tubular body. Because that’s what
`it’s defined in relation to. The second tubular portion having a
`flexible tip portion which is relatively soft and pliable and has
`an entrance of reduced area. So --
`JUDGE WOOD: So any cross-section of the --
`MR. DINARDO: Second.
`JUDGE WOOD: -- second tubular body?
`MR. DINARDO: Tubular body.
`JUDGE MELVIN: So it’s the same as Claim 9?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`MR. DINARDO: Well, I think that the language of
`Claim 1, an entrance of reduced area, could have, it’s a little
`more encompassing than to say it’s the least cross-sectional flow
`area of the second tubular body portion. I understand the
`principle of claim differentiation.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Well, I thought that’s what you
`were saying the language in Claim 1 meant, that “entrance of
`reduced area” meant it was the smallest area in the second
`tubular portion.
`MR. DINARDO: Well, that is --
`JUDGE MELVIN: I mean, it’s fine. You can take the
`position that there is no difference in scope between Claim 1 in
`that aspect and Claim 9. That’s not really that pertinent to this
`proceeding, right? But I just wanted to understand what you are
`saying about Claim 1C.
`MR. DINARDO: I think there is a different between
`the scope of Claim 9 and the scope of Claim 1. The reduced
`area, as I had stated it, was that the tip was the smallest cross-
`sectional area. But I believe there is a difference between the
`language in entrance of reduced area and the fact that that tip
`portion is the least cross-sectional flow area of the second
`tubular body portion. I think that a tip of reduced area could
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`have a same cross-section as an area inside the tip. Did I answer
`your question?
`JUDGE MELVIN: Okay.
`MR. DINARDO: Okay. So then as we continue, and
`then down to Section F, as indicated by counsel, when relating
`back to the second tubular body portion referencing the entrance
`of reduced area and the suction control of the fluid from said tip
`portion through said second and first tubular portions, relating
`that to the relative taper angles of the second and tertiary
`sections of the second tubular body portion and continuing on
`beyond the section referenced by counsel, device maximum
`diameter proximate the entrance of said side inlet, as it’s the side
`inlet that is the opening and closing of that side inlet that allows
`the suction force to draw through the second tubular body
`portion. Patent Owner submits that the combination of those
`limitations would indicate to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`that it’s not just the exterior angles that are relevant, but the
`interior angles, again as indicated by illustrating those angles on
`the cross-sectional view of the tubular body portion rather than a
`solid body view.
`JUDGE MARSCHALL: Is it your position that the
`tapering in the limitations apply to both the interior and exterior
`of the device?
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`
`MR. DINARDO: Yes, Your Honor. I think that it
`applies in two instances, and these were key factors that were
`indicated by Dr. Moore. First, the inside diameter profile, and
`second the relative rigidities. The patent specification discusses
`how the rigidities of the materials are, and the bending of the
`second tubular body portion, particularly the tertiary section, are
`facilitated by the extended length and the relative tapering. The
`relatively lesser taper angle, the tertiary section, along with its
`extended length in comparison to the second section makes it
`more flexible, more easy to bend when it comes into contact with
`the tissue of a patient and less likely to cause discomfort or harm
`to the patient.
`JUDGE MARSCHALL: So both the outside and the
`inside of the tertiary member, for example, must have that
`claimed tapering, correct?
`MR. DINARDO: Relative to the second, to the
`secondary portion, yes.
`JUDGE MARSCHALL: But you are not arguing that
`the thickness of the wall has to remain constant, is that correct?
`MR. DINARDO: That’s not a limitation in the claim.
`It’s not something that was discussed in the specification. And I
`would indicate also that the Figure 3 of the 050 Patent, which is
`a view down the length of the secondary tubular portion or the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`second tubular body, shows these relative angles indicating the
`primary portion which is the outside diameter with the tip being
`shown as the innermost circle and the relative closeness
`indicating the degree of taper angles of the inside diameter. So
`the patent, the 050 Patent does illustrate these inside diameters
`that the Patent Owner submits is covered by the claims, by Claim
`1.
`
`JUDGE MELVIN: But the claim only covers one
`angle, right? And your claim construction is that that angle
`refers to the inside diameter. But as I understand it now, you’re
`saying that there has to be this relationship that applies to both
`the outside diameter and the inside diameter. And I don’t
`understand how you would be getting there through your
`proposed claim construction.
`MR. DINARDO: Well, Patent Owner submits that
`there are two different considerations. One is the inside
`diameter profile that deals with the ease with which the device
`aspirates material without obstruction. And I provided in the
`Demonstrative 1 reference to the portions of the specification
`that discuss that.
`JUDGE MELVIN: Right.
`MR. DINARDO: For example, down here the inside,
`on Column 3, lines 52 to 57, the inside cross-section is typically
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2019-00246
`Patent 6,958,050 B1
`
`
`
`the smallest at the tip. The
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
