`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 74
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 16, 2020
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY,
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
`AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`MARK C. NELSON, ESQ.
`JUANITA DeLOACH, ESQ.
`Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
`2121 N. Pearl Street
`Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 258-4140
`JEFFREY R. STONE, ESQ.
`Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
`225 S. Sixth Street
`Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 367-8704
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`COOK ALCIATI, ESQ.
`GREG H. GARDELLA, ESQ.
`Gardella Grace, P.A.
`80 M Street, SE
`1st Floor
`Washington, DC 20003
`(703) 721-8379
`calciati@gardellagrace.com
`MICHAEL A. STALLMAN, ESQ.
`Morrison & Foerster, LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105
`(415) 268-7000
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 16,
`2020, commencing at 1:15 p.m. via video teleconference.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`
`
`1:16 p.m.
`JUDGE ROSS: Okay. Well, let's go on the record. So we are
`here for the final hearing in IPR 2019-00409 concerning U.S. Patent Number
`8728091.
`This hearing is being conducted by video conference. I am Judge
`Ross. Joining me today are Judge Weatherly and Judge Marschall.
`We have spent a lot of time together over the last two days and I feel
`like I know you guys pretty well. But for the sake of the record, I'd like for
`you to introduce yourself and those joining your party by phone.
`Mr. Nelson, let's start with you.
`MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor. Mark Nelson on behalf
`of Petitioner. With me on the phone are David Whitescarver, Alex
`Rosenstein, Juanita DeLoach, Jeff Stone, and Nell Butler, I believe. Is there
`anybody else on on the Petitioner's side? Should be it.
`JUDGE ROSS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alciati? We can't hear
`
`you.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Maybe my problems have infected Mr.
`Alciati's computer.
`MR. ALCIATI: No. No. I just apparently can't figure out that
`when the phone says mute you're not going to hear me. So let me try again.
`So good afternoon, your Honors.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`Cook Alciati on behalf of the Patent Owner, Shockwave. I am
`joined on the phone by Greg Gardella, who is lead counsel for Shockwave
`Medical in this proceeding. Also on the phone is backup counsel, Michael
`Stallman.
`As well on the phone is Mike Fleming of Irell & Manella, counsel
`for Shockwave Medical. From the Shockwave side we have Doug
`Godshall, who is the CEO of Shockwave Medical, Hajime Tada, who's the
`general counsel for Shockwave Medical, Pat Stephens -- Patrick Stephens --
`who is the vice president of research and development at Shockwave
`Medical, and John Adams, who is a consultant to Shockwave Medical.
`JUDGE ROSS: Thank you. Okay, we are just going to recap a little
`of what we talked about before. Because we are all joining remotely, we
`need to make sure that you speak clearly, obviously, and allow for a little
`delay. I am horrible about talking over people and so I ask your forgiveness
`in advance.
`We all have electronic versions of your slide presentations, so as you
`go through them please make sure to reference the slide number. That'll
`help us follow along and it will also ensure that the record is clear.
`As we mentioned in our oral hearing order, each side is going to
`have 60 minutes today to present their argument. Because the Petitioner
`bears the burden of persuasion, the Petitioner will go first.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`Each side may reserve up to 15 minutes of rebuttal. Counsel for
`Petitioner, whenever you're ready you may proceed and just let me know
`how much time you want to reserve for rebuttal, and I also ask you guys to
`bear with me. I am not very skilled at monitoring the timer so I will do my
`best.
`
`Mr. Nelson?
`MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you.
`Before I start, I want to -- I want to check to see if Judge Weatherly
`is on because my screen shows him as a blank box.
`JUDGE ROSS: He's having problems with his video feed. But I
`think he is on and can hear us.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I am on.
`MR. NELSON: Okay.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And sorry you can't see me but I am going
`to remain unseen, I think, on this video unless the system --
`MR. NELSON: Okay.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- pops me back in.
`MR. NELSON: All right. Well, with that, I can begin. And, your
`Honor, if it's possible I would like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal. If
`possible, if I could get a time warning maybe at the five-minute mark and
`then at the 15 -- and then at the 15 minutes left mark, and I'll try to keep time
`myself as well.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`So, good afternoon, your Honors. I want to start with slide five.
`And the 091patent is a patent about energy control, basically, and this is a
`portion of the specification. There's a need to apply -- to control the applied
`energy to assure the appropriate bubble and shockwave formation while
`conserving electrode materials and assuring safety.
`And if you go over to slide 6, the specification of the patent explains
`that this what's doing -- what's the -- what the 091 patent is really about, at
`least the element that's in dispute, is about what the high voltage power
`supply is doing and the patent explains that there's certain advantages
`minimizing electrode wear, decreasing heat, by including a power source
`with a current sensor.
`So the current sensor is in the power source, part of it, that sends
`signals to terminate the high voltage supply when the current flow reaches a
`predetermined limit.
`And slide seven has the claim, and I just want to focus on the
`language on the claim for a minute. So this is Element E. So the claim
`says wherein the power source includes a current sensor for detecting the
`current flow between the electrodes during each voltage pulse and wherein
`the current reaches a predetermined value during each voltage pulse, the
`sensor generates a signal that causes the power source to terminate the
`voltage supplied to the electrodes for that pulse.
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`And I guess I neglected to mention, your Honors, if there was
`anything you wanted me to focus on before I started. So I'll ask that now.
`JUDGE ROSS: I think you're starting out just fine. This is one of
`my areas of interest.
`MR. NELSON: Okay. And so I really want to focus on Element E
`and what it means. So if we go over to slide 9 this is what we understand
`the law to be. To determine whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
`obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the allotted purpose of the
`patentee controls, what matters is the objective reach of the claim.
`And so when you look at the objective reach of this claim, it's talking
`about the power source that has a current sensor. That current sensor
`generates a value. When the current reaches a predetermined value it
`generates a signal, I should say.
`The signal acts on the power source to terminate the voltage.
`Doesn't say voltage pulse. It says voltage supplied to the electrodes for that
`pulse. And the Patent Owner spends a lot of time on the inductance and
`negative resistance aspects of this and in Petitioner's view all of that goes to
`what this claim actually means.
`And so on slide 11 I have sort of the claim language that Petitioner
`feels the most important carved out there. The sensor generates the signal,
`causing the power source to terminate the voltage supply to the electrodes.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`So it's clear from the claim that the signal acts on the power source.
`The power source terminates the voltage supplied to the electrodes. The
`claim doesn't recite terminating the voltage supplied at or at the electrodes,
`nor does the claim recite terminating the voltage pulse itself, the current, or
`the arc. It talks about the power supply terminating the voltage. It turns it
`off, and that's what the claim is about.
`And walking through the patent, the figures and the specification --
`the specification describes somewhat how this works. And so switch 86,
`which is outlined in the green box, exists in the power supply. It selectively
`applies the high voltage on line 88, which is shown up here in the HV plus,
`which ultimately leads out to the terminal points here, the electrodes at the
`far end, 22 and 24.
`Microprocessor 90 through optical driver 92, so the microprocessor
`is in yellow on the left and the Opto FET Driver is in the middle sort of in
`purple, causes the switch to apply the voltage to the electrodes. And so it
`does it by applying it to that HV plus line.
`So if we talked about terminating the voltage now, the patent
`describes -- and I am on slide 13 -- terminating the voltage. So the current
`sensor 94, which is within the green switch and includes the sensing resistor
`96, that generates a signal.
`That signal is applied to the Opto isolator, which is 98, when the
`current reaches a predetermined value and the patent gives an example of
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`that value as 50 amp, microprocessor 90 then causes the application of the
`voltage to be terminated, meaning it cuts it off.
`The foregoing occurs for each high voltage pulse supplied to the
`electrodes. So that's the circuitry of Figure 6 that powers this thing.
`And so during his deposition, and I am on slide 14, Dr. van der
`Weide was asked to explain, okay, well, what is it that's turned off within the
`power supply here that's cutting the voltage supplied, and he explains if this
`IGBT transistor that's been marked here -- in the actual exhibit it's more pink
`but in the slide it kind of turned purple and he labeled it IGBT.
`And he explained that this is controlled by the Opto FET Driver 92
`and the termination is accomplished when you open circuit that IGBT
`through the optical driver 92 and power source 80. So you get the signal
`from the sensor. The microprocessor says turn it off. The Opto FET
`Driver says okay, IGBT turn off, and it's turned off.
`And that's what the claim is talking about. It's not talking about
`what's happening out on the longer lead, and that's consistent with what
`Figure 5, which is on slide 15, and Figure 5 is a -- is a diagram based on a
`simplified Figure 4 signal or Figure 4 -- Figure 4 of the patent that doesn't
`have all the circuitry of Figure 6. It doesn't really have any of the power
`supply circuitry the claim is talking about.
`But it -- Figure 5 shows that when the current -- when the circuit
`closes the voltage across the electrodes quickly rise and that's shown in 70.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`It goes from zero to 70 here -- well, to line 70. The current remains low for
`a period of time and that's called the dwell time, and then it rises rapidly.
`The current is the dashed line indicating arc formation, and then once the
`voltage supplied is terminated ultimately the current drops.
`So what does it mean to terminate? Well, terminate means to stop
`or halt, and this -- these dictionaries of modern electric -- what Modern
`Dictionary of Electronics and other dictionaries are consistent in its
`meaning, that terminating means closing a circuit. Doesn't imply any
`special condition. It basically means you stop something, and the Patent
`Owner didn't respond to that, I don't believe, in the sur-reply.
`So Patent Owner's inductance and negative resistance arguments
`basically ignore all of it. Those arguments are focused on what happens,
`and if you go out on slide 19, for example, Patent Owner's arguments are
`focused on what happens.
`If you look at Figured 2 on slide 19 and the electrodes out here are
`22 and 24, Patent Owner's arguments are focused on what's happening out
`here at the electrodes, not at what the claim actually says.
`The specification contains --
`JUDGE ROSS: So let me interrupt you.
`MR. NELSON: Yes?
`JUDGE ROSS: So isn't the Patent Owner's invention, though,
`directed toward terminating the pulse so that it can get the leading edge of
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`the bubble formation and then shockwaves form -- I guess what I am having
`a hard time understanding is how does that reconcile with you saying that
`inductance and negative resistance doesn't matter in this context because
`their invention really is about the cavitation bubble bursting and causing the
`shockwave?
`MR. NELSON: So, ultimately, the Patent Owner's invention is
`described by what it claimed, and what it claimed was terminating the
`voltage supplied to the electrodes. It didn't claim terminating the arc, didn't
`claim terminating the voltage flow, didn't claim any of that. It claimed it
`terminated the voltage supply to the electrode, and I'll submit, although this
`isn't in the record, that this patent is not enabled because there is nothing in
`this circuit of Figure 6 that actually deals with the inductance at the terminal
`end of the lead that Dr. van der Weide is talking about, or the negative
`resistance. But that isn't part of this proceeding. But it's our position that
`that would be the case.
`But, ultimately, the invention in this case is defined by what was
`claimed and the Patent Owner may wish it had written its claims different
`than it did. But it wrote the claims it wrote, and that's what we are focusing
`on invalidating.
`Does that answer your question?
`JUDGE ROSS: It does. Thank you.
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`MR. NELSON: Okay. And so looking at the specification, the
`specification contains no discussion of inductance or how to overcome it.
`During his deposition, Dr. van der Weide was asked well, is inductance
`mentioned in the claims? No. Specification? No.
`He gave a description in paragraphs 54 to 61 that described the
`purported solution for handling inductance that basically doesn't mention
`inductance. He talked about how the 091 terminates the voltage supply to
`the electrode specifically in Figure 6 during his deposition for 12 or 14
`pages, really not discussing inductance.
`None of the prior art relied upon here by the Petitioners discuss
`inductance, and I am on slide 18. And so going to slide 19, if we look at the
`claim language again, the sensor generates a signal that causes the power
`supply to terminate the voltage supplied to the electrodes for that pulse, and
`Patent Owner seems to be reading the claim differently.
`Patent Owner wants to read it, the sensor generates a signal that
`causes the power source to terminate the voltage at the electrodes for that
`pulse and that's a very different thing, and it's that reading that isn't what the
`claim language says that would be dealing with the inductance on the lead
`that Dr. van der Weide is talking about and the negative resistance. And so
`for that reason, we don't think this argument has merit, based on the claim
`language.
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`In the sur-reply, Patent Owner talks about, well, you could also read
`it terminating the voltage pulse supplied and that, I guess if they omitted the
`word pulse or something from the claim language. But that seems to be the
`logical reading because the claim was amended as the Patent Owner's slides
`say.
`
`But if you read it like the Patent Owner says in its sur-reply
`argument the claim would read the sensor generates a signal that causes the
`power source to terminate the voltage pulse or the voltage -- the voltage
`pulse supplied to the electrode for that pulse.
`And so it would kind of be a logical reading and also it's clear from
`other portions of the claim that when the Patent Owner wanted to talk about
`voltage pulse it uses the word voltage pulse.
`Here, it doesn't use the word voltage pulse, and it amended the claim
`specifically to add voltage pulse in certain places. It didn't add it here. It
`added for that pulse instead.
`And so based on what the Patent Owner actually claimed, we believe
`that Patent Owner's inductance and negative resistance arguments just don't
`apply here, and that was on slide 20.
`So Patent Owner's other response to that argument is it tries to push
`the inductance issue back into the switch itself, and Patent Owner refers to,
`and this is on slide 21 -- it's an annotated figure that Patent Owner created
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`for Dr. Jensen's second deposition -- and it refers to a diode A that allows
`current to flow only in one direction.
`And that diode is, in known parlance, is what's called a freewheeling
`diode and that's, I don't think, in the papers anywhere but that's my
`understanding of what it is. And that diode protects from a current surge
`due to inductance.
`But it doesn't do anything with respect to getting rid of inductance at
`that diode on the lead and at the electrode. It's just protecting the circuitry.
`And Patent Owner's own slide 29 reaffirms that point. In Patent Owner's
`slide 29, Patent Owner states diode A acts to protect the IGBT switch from
`the voltage spike caused by the inductance which allows IGBT to open.
`So that's not dealing with generating any delay time in terminating a
`current or an arc caused by the length of the lead and the inductance in the
`lead -- in the lead. It's simply protecting the circuitry.
`And to the extent there is any inductance associated with IGBT, it's
`dealt with in the patent itself, although it's not called inductance. But the
`patent talks about a delay timer embodiment and that it takes approximately
`a hundred nanoseconds for the IGBT switch to open.
`And so to the extent this thing is talking about turning it off, there's a
`hundred nanosecond delay built in there that would account for, you know,
`any inductance that would exist on the IGBT to the extent it does.
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`Patent owner, in their slides, make other switch-related arguments as
`well, talking about the load -- the load on the switch, and that's over on
`Exhibits 2189 to 2192 on slide 22.
`But, again, those arguments all relate to protecting the circuitry from
`the voltage spike. They don't have anything to do with the actual arguments
`that Dr. van der Weide is making with respect to inductance and negative
`resistance.
`Dr. Jensen recognized that. He never stated, to our view anyway,
`that switch 86 would be affected by inductance that would cause substantial
`switching delay, did not admit that it would make it more difficult to open
`the switch, including the IGBT of Figure 6. And so we believe his testimony
`is consistent there.
`Turning to negative resistance, it's really the same issue, negative
`resistance not mentioned in the patent. Dr. van der Weide fails to explain
`how Figure 6 would overcome it to the extent it's existing. He admits the
`claims don't address it.
`It's my understanding that negative resistance would serve to
`basically suck the inductance out faster because the arc was going to try to
`stay alive. So it maybe shortened the delay time and acts to shorten the
`delay time as opposed to make it more unpredictable. But that is attorney
`argument, I don't think that position is in the record anywhere.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`Going on, negative resistance not mentioned in the other -- in the
`091 patent family anywhere. Shockwave submitted an 824-page handbook
`of Shockwaves, it's not used in there anywhere, not mentioned in the prior
`art.
`
`Dr. Berger from the 371 case who had the -- a double E degree from
`MIT, he wasn't familiar with the term, and this is on slide 24. And so for all
`of those reasons, it's Petitioner's viewpoint that this negative resistance and
`inductance argument is really sort of a tangent in the wrong direction, that it
`really is divorced from the actual claim language and therefore has no merit.
`And with that, I'll ask if there's any questions on this. Otherwise, I'll
`move on to the combination.
`JUDGE ROSS: No, I think I understand. Thank you.
`MR. NELSON: Okay. So turning to the combination, slide 28 is --
`I don't think there's any disputes with respect to elements A and B. They
`are all taught by Hawkins 768. So let's go to Li, first of all.
`So on slide 29, Li is an over current protection circuitry in a
`switching power supply just like the 091 patent is a switching power supply.
`It comprises, among other things, the current sense circuit. The switching
`power supply is -- Li teaches two levels with two different thresholds and
`two different possible mechanisms.
`And so on slide 30 Li teaches a first level of over current protection
`that could either deactivate a pulse early or narrow subsequent pulses in
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`response to a first threshold. And then Li's second level over current
`protection teaches that you can skip pulses in a situation where you have a
`short.
`
`Slide 31 is basically just showing that the current sensor is connected
`to the respective over current protections and back -- you know, they
`respond to a signal from the current sensor.
`Slide 32, the over current protection -- so this is important. So it's --
`one of Patent Owner's arguments here seems to be either the Petitioner used
`hindsight because it only focused on Li Level 1, or that Li Level 1 wouldn't
`work because it's not teaching using -- it's not -- it's not teaching terminating
`a pulse early in the context of if you have a short circuit, basically.
`But Li is clear that there -- its disclosure here is broad, and this is
`from slide 32. The over current protection circuit 26 may not include both
`Level 1 or Level 2 but instead could include only one of them.
`So either Level 1 or Level 2 is equally applicable in either situation
`in Petitioner's viewpoint, and the choice is dictated by --
`JUDGE ROSS: Let me ask you --
`MR. NELSON: Yes?
`JUDGE ROSS: Let me just ask a quick question. Maybe you can
`clarify this for me. So if we opted only to have Level 1 and we were in a
`short circuit situation, are you saying then that the circuit would just
`completely shut off?
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`MR. NELSON: No, I don't believe so. I think that if you only had
`Li Level 1 and you had a short circuit situation, the circuit could terminate
`the pulse earlier to essentially get rid of the short circuit. Or it could narrow
`subsequent pulses in hopes the short circuit would go away. But in
`Petitioner's view, Li is teaching that you can use either Level 1 or 2,
`depending on what choice of application you want to use and that they are
`not mutually exclusive of one another. And I'll --
`JUDGE ROSS: Okay, I see your distinction.
`MR. NELSON: Okay. Let me cite through one other portion of Li
`that's not on the slide for that argument as well.
`So Li in paragraph 41, it talks about the first determined over current
`threshold could be an overload condition. The second predetermined
`threshold could be a short circuit condition. But it doesn't say they have to
`be. It just said they could be. And so, again, Li's language here is
`permissive.
`So what does Patent Owner say in response to this other than the
`hindsight argument? Well, Patent Owner basically does sort of a physical
`embodiment argument that, well, you wouldn't combine Li with Hawkins
`because Li uses MOSFETs transistors and MOSFETs can't handle the
`voltage.
`But, you know, the law is clear that, as we said in other cases here,
`that the board has said, that the test here isn't -- you know, isn't a
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`combination. It's not a bodily incorporation standard. It's what a reference
`would teach one of ordinary skill in the art.
`But that notwithstanding, Li -- first of all, it's not clear at all from
`Hawkins that we are limited to these really high voltages. On slide 33 and
`in the reply brief, Hawkins says you can have voltages as low as a hundred
`volts. Now, Patent Owner says that's a mistake and filed a certificate of
`correction. But as we pointed out in the reply, there are many other patents
`that are within the 091 Patent family that have this same 100 to 3,000 volt
`language and those patents don't have -- those applications don't have
`certificates of correction. The 091 Patent itself teaches as low as 500 volts.
`And so I think the whole idea that Hawkins is limited to a high voltage,
`depending on what, quote, high voltage is, isn't backed up by the
`specification. But even if it was, Li teaches MOSFETs that can handle
`voltages of at least a thousand volts, and this is on slide 34. The bodily
`incorporation isn't the standard, but even if it was, Li teaches MOSFETs
`called power MOSFETs that can go over a thousand volts. But I think -- I
`think in Exhibit 5 there's one example where you can get up to 4,500 volts.
`So what does Patent Owner say in response? Well now Patent
`Owner says, well, it comes back and talks about higher current and that Li
`couldn't handle -- Li's MOSFETs couldn't handle the higher current.
`But again, as we talked about before, this bodily incorporation isn't
`the standard and this is the sur-reply argument. And Dr. Jensen was asked
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`to explain, well, could you design a circuit using MOSFETs that didn't have,
`and I don't know if the example was a hundred volts or something, and he
`said, well, yeah, you could -- you could certainly design circuitry that would
`allow the MOSFETs to basically share the volt -- the current if you needed
`to.
`
`But, you know, again, bodily incorporation isn't the standard. Li is
`not limited to MOSFETs. Even if it were, they can handle the issues here,
`particularly because Hawkins isn't nearly limited to the high voltages that
`Patent Owner claims and the claims themselves don't have any voltage
`limitations that I am aware of.
`This sort of goes along with Patent Owner's non-analogous
`arguments on slide 36. The 091 patent talks about a need to control the
`energy applied to the electrode of an electronic arc Shockwave generated.
`This isn't -- in the petition we -- Petitioner said this type of electrical control,
`it's not unique to surgery or medical devices. I mean, this is basically a
`straightforward feedback type circuit.
`Dr. van der Weide was asked what the field of endeavor was for the
`091 and he said concerned with voltage pulse production and control --
`again, getting at the energy control aspect of this. And that's exactly what
`Li does. It's designed over current protection to control the energy in a
`switch power supply. So we think Li should certainly be considered
`analogous art.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`For motivation to combine, as the board noted, Hawkins itself
`teaches a motivation to combine. It's talking about the magnitude of the
`shockwave that can be controlled by controlling the magnitude of the pulse
`voltage, the current, the duration, and the repetition rate.
`And so Hawkins itself recognizes -- Hawkins 768 recognizes that,
`you know, it might be beneficial to control the duration of the pulse of the
`voltage supply. And so that's implicit in the reference itself.
`I know the former -- well, I'll leave it at that. And Dr. Jensen also
`offered safety-related rationales and heat-related rationales of motivation to
`combine that Patent Owner, largely, didn't address.
`We talked about the hindsight argument a little bit. This is on slide
`38. But Dr. Jensen he did consider both Level 1 and Level 2 as an analysis,
`but then looked at what the specification of Hawkins said, which is quoted
`here at paragraph 27, I believe, of -- I'm sorry, of what Li said. I think this
`is quoted on paragraph 27 of Li.
`But, again, you don't have to have Level 1 or Level 2. You can
`have either one, depending on what design you're using. So with that, I'll
`move on to the Heeren combination and just with respect to the inductance
`negative resistance argument, it's Petitioner's view that those arguments
`equally apply to all of these references.
`The claim here isn't requiring -- you know, isn't claiming what Patent
`Owner's patent believes it's claiming and that the inductance and negative
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`resistance here, you know, wouldn't play a part in any of these -- in the
`combination of any of these references.
`So turning to slide 39 on the Heeren reference, so Heeren is a
`surgical device that's used for a type of eye surgery, that you want to prevent
`or reduce damage that happens when there's been a dielectric breakdown.
`Ideally, you want to prevent dielectric breakdown from happening if
`you can help it. So it has a current sensor -- Heeren teaches a lot of
`different sensors, one of which is a current sensor at the tip of the probe 114
`that can measure the strength of the electric current passing through the
`probe to detect a sudden increase in current.
`So Heeren teaches, on slide 40, the sensor readings including sensor
`readings from that current sensor are sent to a transducer monitor 155
`configured to compare the data collected by the sensors including the current
`sensor to a threshold.
`What is a threshold? Well, a threshold is a value, to determine
`whether the dielectric breakdown is imminent or whether it has occurred.
`What does Heeren do in response? Heeren teaches, based on the results of
`the comparison between the sensor data and one of the predetermined
`thresholds, so we know the thresholds in advance.
`Transducer monitor instructs the pulse generator to adjust
`operational parameters, and Heeren identifies a lot of operational
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2019-00409
`Patent 8,728,091 B2
`
`parameters, one of which is pulse duration. It also says adjusting the
`voltage in the pulses and you can do it in the middle of the pulse.
`So let me go to slide 42 real quick, and slide 42 diagram 702 that --
`Heeren there is showing an adjustment in the middle of a call. So here
`Heeren is not terminating it completely to zero. It looks like it's cutting the
`value at about half.
`But paragraph three of Heeren, or paragraph 33 of Heeren -- let me
`double check to make sure it's 33. Paragraph 33 of Heeren teaches that the
`operational parameters such as t
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
