PETITIONER AXONICS’ ARGUMENT
`IPR2020-00680 & IPR2020-00712
`
`February 8, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 74
`
`Axonics Exhibit 1033
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 & IPR2020-00712
`
`February 8, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 74
`
`Axonics Exhibit 1033
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`
`
`AGENDA
`
`• The Prior Art Meets The “Two Inputs” Limitations As Construed
`• Medtronic’s Additional, Erroneous Claim Construction Cannot
`Disprove Unpatentability
`• Medtronic’s Remaining Arguments Fail
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 74
`
`
`
`AGENDA
`
`• The Prior Art Meets The “Two Inputs” Limitations As Construed
`• Medtronic’s Additional, Erroneous Claim Construction Cannot
`Disprove Unpatentability
`• Medtronic’s Remaining Arguments Fail
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 74
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT REMAND
`
`“We vacate the Board’s decisions in these IPRs and remand for the
`Board to consider Axonics’ arguments and evidence under the two-
`input claim construction and, correspondingly, to consider any
`request by Medtronic to present new evidence in support of its sur-
`reply.”
`
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 22-1532 & 22-1533, Slip
`Op. (IPR2020-00712, Paper 61, IPR2020-00680, Paper 64) at 19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 74
`
`
`
`148 AND 758 PATENT “WHEREIN” LIMITATIONS
`•
`148 Patent
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`Claim 3
`value associated with said current passing through said internal battery; and
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`signal proportional to said current passing through said internal battery.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`148 Patent
`Claim 6
`
`758 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`value associated with said current passing through said internal battery; and
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power source output
`based on a measured voltage associated with said current passing through said
`internal battery.
`
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`value associated with said current passing through said internal power source;
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`measured current associated with said current passing through said internal power
`source.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1001;
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 74
`
`
`
`THE BOARD’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not sufficiently supported its proposed
`construction and determine that the Value Limitation and the Measured Current Limitation
`require two separate inputs to the external power source.”
`
`“Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not sufficiently supported its proposed
`construction and determine that the Value Limitation and the Signal Limitation, as well as
`the Value Limitation and the Measured Voltage Limitation both require two separate inputs
`to the external power source.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2020-00712, FWD (Paper 42) at 26, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 76) at 4;
`IPR2020-00680, FWD (Paper 45) at 26, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 79) at 4.
`
`Page 6 of 74
`
`
`
`SCHULMAN MEETS THE “TWO INPUTS” LIMITATIONS
`
`• The charger uses R9 to automatically vary its power output
`• R9 level is “based on” two input values:
`– Charging current passing through the battery
`– Voltage across leads 51 and 52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 74
`
`
`
`SCHULMAN MEETS THE “TWO INPUTS” LIMITATIONS
`
`• The charger uses R9 to automatically vary its power output
`• R9 level is “based on” two input values:
`– Charging current passing through the battery
`– Voltage across leads 51 and 52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`XX
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-19; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition)
`at 16; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`“The charging circuit is illustrated in FIG. 2 and includes two induction coils 17 and 18. The output leads 51
`and 52 from the induction coil 17 are rectified and are connected to the tissue stimulator of FIG. 3.”
`
`“All current up to a maximum level will flow through the rectified output leads 51 and 52 to charge the
`battery 15.”
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-19; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 16;
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3, 3:59-62, 6:17-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 20; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition)
`at 17; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3.
`
`Page 11 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`“[T]he telemetry frequency is controlled by the transistors Q2 and Q3, which are in turn
`controlled by the current through the current sampling resistor R9.”
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 19-20; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 16-18;
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3, 4:63-66.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`less than this maximum passing through resistor R9 is indicative of
`“[A]ny current
`inadequate charging of the battery 15. It is the telemetry circuit 12 (previously described)
`which senses this condition and signals the condition back to the induction coil 21 by
`modulating the frequency of the amplitude peak fluctuation of the charging field.”
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 12, 19-20; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 11,
`16-18; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 1, 6:19-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT
`
`“[A]ny current less than this maximum passing through resistor R9 is indicative of inadequate charging of the
`battery 15. It is the telemetry circuit 12 (previously described) which senses this condition and signals the
`condition back to the induction coil 21 by modulating the frequency of the amplitude peak fluctuation of the
`charging field.”
`
`“The electrical control signal generated in transducer 14 by the magnetic output signal from the telemetry
`circuit 12 will produce changes in the regulation of the power source 13.”
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 12, 19-20; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 11, 16-18;
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 1, 6:19-25, 6:35-38.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 74
`
`
`
`CURRENT SAMPLING RESISTOR R9 IS USED TO
`AUTOMATICALLY VARY CHARGER POWER OUTPUT
`
`“[T]he telemetry frequency is controlled by the transistors Q2 and Q3, which are in turn
`controlled by the current through the current sampling resistor R9.”
`
`less than this maximum passing through resistor R9 is indicative of
`“[A]ny current
`inadequate charging of the battery 15. It is the telemetry circuit 12 (previously described)
`which senses this condition and signals the condition back to the induction coil 21 by
`modulating the frequency of the amplitude peak fluctuation of the charging field.”
`
`“The electrical control signal generated in transducer 14 by the magnetic output signal
`from the telemetry circuit 12 will produce changes in the regulation of the power source
`13.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 19-20; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 16-
`18; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), 4:63-66, 6:19-25, 6:35-38.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 74
`
`
`
`AXONICS EXPLAINED THAT THE CHANGE IN CURRENT THROUGH
`R9 IS USED TO AUTOMATICALLY VARY CHARGER POWER OUTPUT
`
`“The change in the magnitude of the charging current, as sampled by R9, changes the
`frequency of the multivibrator, which is telemetered back to the external power source via
`coil 18.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 19 (Reply) at 13; IPR2020-00680, Paper 19 (Reply) at 11.
`
`Page 16 of 74
`
`
`
`NO DISPUTE: CHANGE IN CURRENT THROUGH R9 IS USED
`TO AUTOMATICALLY VARY CHARGER POWER OUTPUT
`
`“As I opined in my previous declaration, Schulman discloses that the sole input provided
`to the external power source that the external power source uses to automatically regulate
`its power output is the input that derives from the amount of current flowing through the
`current sampling resistor R9 (highlighted in blue in annotated figure 2 above).”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), ¶ 5.
`
`Page 17 of 74
`
`
`
`NO DISPUTE: CHANGE IN CURRENT THROUGH R9 IS USED
`TO AUTOMATICALLY VARY CHARGER POWER OUTPUT
`
`Q. In your declaration, did you identify a disclosure in Schulman that any of the actual influences in R9
`would cause the charger to change power?
`. . .
`THE WITNESS: So I guess I’m – I’m not entirely clear on the question. I think there’s no dispute between
`Dr. Panescu and myself that the current through R9 is converted into a -- a load modulation single that is used
`as a telemetry back to the external charger for varying power. And certainly I discussed that in my opening
`declarations. And I have no dispute that that is indeed disclosed in Schulman, that the current through R9 will
`change the frequency of a multivibrator circuit that load modulates the induction signal that can be sensed by
`the external device, and that the external device does, in fact, utilize that change in frequency and interpret it
`as a change in current through R9 and will use that to either increase or -- or decrease the applied power
`appropriately in response to that. So that’s not – that’s not in dispute.
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 31:20-32:21,
`Axonics Post Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 74
`
`
`
`SCHULMAN MEETS THE “TWO INPUTS” LIMITATIONS
`
`• The charger uses R9 to automatically vary its power output
`• R9 level is “based on” two input values:
`– Charging current passing through the battery
`– Voltage across leads 51 and 52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`Input 1: charging current passing through the battery
`
`“Schulman discloses that the current through R9 can increase: (1) when the magnitude of
`charging current passing through the internal battery 15 exceeds a predetermined current
`(Ex. 1001, 5:22-24; Ex. 1003, ¶70), as described in the Petition (Pet., 19-26; Ex. 1003,
`¶¶90- 91; POR, 19); and (2) when the voltage across the output leads 51 and 52 exceeds
`the predetermined maximum amount (Ex. 1001, 5:7-14, 5:36-59, Ex. 1012, ¶¶12-18).”
`
`“Schulman discloses that the current through R9 can increase: (1) when the magnitude of
`charging current passing through the internal battery 15 exceeds a predetermined current
`(Ex. 1001, 5:22-24; Ex. 1003, ¶70), as described in the Petition (Pet., 34-36, 40, 44-45; Ex.
`1003, ¶90-91); and (2) when the voltage across the output leads 51 and 52 exceeds the
`predetermined maximum amount (Ex. 1001, 5:7-14, 5:36-59, Ex. 1012, ¶¶16-18).”
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 19 (Reply) at 12; IPR2020-00680, Paper 19 (Reply) at 10.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 4 (excerpted); IPR2020-
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-20, 22;
`00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 3 (excerpted).
`IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 16-18.
`“[A]ny current less than this maximum passing through resistor R9 is indicative of inadequate
`charging of the battery 15. It is the telemetry circuit 12 (previously described) which senses this
`condition and signals the condition back to the induction coil 21 by modulating the frequency of
`the amplitude peak fluctuation of the charging field.”
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-20, 22; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at 16-18.
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3, 6:19-38.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 4 (excerpted);
`IPR2020-00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 3 (excerpted);
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-
`19; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at
`16; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680,
`Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 4 (excerpted); IPR2020-00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal
`Decl.), at p. 3 (excerpted); IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Figs. 2 & 3.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`Charging current passing through the battery is an input.
`“[A]ny current less than this maximum passing through resistor R9 is indicative of inadequate
`charging of the battery 15. It is the telemetry circuit 12 (previously described) which senses this
`condition and signals the condition back to the induction coil 21 by modulating the frequency of
`the amplitude peak fluctuation of the charging field.”
`
`“The electrical control signal generated in transducer 14 by the magnetic output signal from the
`telemetry circuit 12 will produce changes in the regulation of the power source 13.”
`
`“Of course the electrical control signal on lead 59 from the transducer adjusts the current output
`from the current control means 60 to the induction coil 24 in order to adjust the strength of the
`magnetic field applied to the implanted charging circuit. That is, when the current passing through
`resistor R9 in the charging circuit exceeds a maximum operating level, the signal from circuit 59
`will lower the output current from current control means 60.”
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 20, 22; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at
`17-18; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), 6:19-38, 7:20-29.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`Charging current passing through the battery is an input.
`
`“When the current through the internal battery, as measured by current regulator R8/Q7,
`increases above a predetermined target value (40mA), the current regulator turns on,
`increasing the current through current sampling resistor R9. That in turn increases the
`telemetered multivibrator output frequency which causes the power supplied by the
`external power source to decrease. This feedback loop operates in reverse as well, whereby
`when there is inadequate charging, the loop operates to increase the power supplied by the
`external power source. In this manner Schulman teaches automatically varying the output
`power of the external power source based on a measured current [or value].”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1012 (Panescu Reply Decl.), ¶ 14, Paper 19
`(Reply) at 12-13; IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1012 (Panescu Reply Decl.), ¶
`15 (includes bracketed text), Paper 19 (Reply) at 10-11.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 25 of 74
`
`
`
`CHARGE CURRENT CHANGE CAUSES R9 CURRENT TO
`CHANGE
`
`Does the charge current through the battery increasing cause R9 current to increase?
`A. So it certainly can, because the current passing through R9 includes the current that is
`actually passing through the battery, but also includes other currents, as we discussed. . . .
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019
`(Mihran Dep.), 37:17-22; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-
`00680, Axonics’ Post Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712,
`Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 74
`
`
`
`SCHULMAN MEETS THE “TWO INPUTS” LIMITATIONS
`
`• The charger uses R9 to automatically vary its power output
`• R9 level is “based on” two input values:
`– Charging current passing through the battery
`– Voltage across leads 51 and 52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`Input 2: the voltage across the output leads 51 and 52.
`
`“Schulman discloses that the current through R9 can increase: (1) when the magnitude of
`charging current passing through the internal battery 15 exceeds a predetermined current
`(Ex. 1001, 5:22-24; Ex. 1003, ¶70), as described in the Petition (Pet., 19-26; Ex. 1003,
`¶¶90- 91; POR, 19); and (2) when the voltage across the output leads 51 and 52 exceeds
`the predetermined maximum amount (Ex. 1001, 5:7-14, 5:36-59, Ex. 1012, ¶¶12-18).”
`
`“Schulman discloses that the current through R9 can increase: (1) when the magnitude of
`charging current passing through the internal battery 15 exceeds a predetermined current
`(Ex. 1001, 5:22-24; Ex. 1003, ¶70), as described in the Petition (Pet., 34-36, 40, 44-45; Ex.
`1003, ¶90-91); and (2) when the voltage across the output leads 51 and 52 exceeds the
`predetermined maximum amount (Ex. 1001, 5:7-14, 5:36-59, Ex. 1012, ¶¶16-18).”
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 19 (Reply) at 12; IPR2020-00680, Paper 19 (Reply) at 10.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 28 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 4 (excerpted);
`IPR2020-00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.), at p. 3 (excerpted);
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 1 (Petition) at 18-
`19; IPR2020-00680, Paper 1 (Petition) at
`16; IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680,
`Ex. 1005 (Schulman), at Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`Page 29 of 74
`
`
`
`THE SCHULMAN CHARGER AUTOMATICALLY VARIES
`POWER OUTPUT BASED ON TWO INPUTS
`Voltage across leads 51 and 52 is an input.
`
`“When the voltage across leads 51 and 52 exceeds a predetermined amount, a current starts
`to flow through the zener diode VR1 to limit this increased voltage. As the zener diode
`VR1 draws current, the current through current sampling resistor R9 increases. That in turn
`increases the telemetered multivibrator output frequency which causes the power supplied
`by the external power source to decrease. In this manner Schulman teaches automatically
`varying the output power of the external power source based on a [measured voltage or
`a signal / value], where the [signal / value] is the voltage across the output leads 51 and
`52.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1012 (Panescu Reply Decl.), ¶ 16 (includes first text in
`bracket), Paper 19 (Reply) at 12-13; IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1012 (Panescu Reply
`Decl.), ¶ 17 (includes second text in bracket), Paper 19 (Reply) at 10-11.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`Page 30 of 74
`
`
`
`INCREASING VOLTAGE INCREASES R9 LEVEL
`
`Q. If there was a battery open circuit, what would happen through the current through R9?
`A. Well, it would depend on other operating conditions in terms of the -- you know, if -- if the -- if
`the pacer is not being recharged at that time, then it wouldn't have any effect on the current through
`R9. If charging was taking place and this open circuit were to occur, it would, of course, depend on
`the level that the voltage reached across leads 51 and 52. Schul- -- Schulman teaches a -- a
`representative -- excuse me -- value for Zener breakdown voltage to be something like 3.6 volts. So
`whether it reached 3.6 volts or not would depend on, you know, the coupling and the recharging
`setup and other things. If it did reach 3.6 volts and that Zener diode began to conduct, then the
`current that the Zener diode conducts one would expect to see passing through R9, along with other
`currents that are passing through R9 at that time.
`Q. And so the result would be that the current through R9 is increasing, correct?
`A. It -- it could be. And if the conditions were -- were right, it could be, yes. So, like other factors
`that we’ve been discussing, it can influence the amount of occurrence passing through R9.
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 60:9-62:14; Axonics Post Remand Br.
`(IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 31 of 74
`
`
`
`INCREASING VOLTAGE INCREASES R9 LEVEL
`
`Q. If there’s a battery open circuit, it’s possible that the current through R9 could go above
`the 40-milliamp target current?
`A. I think it’s possible that it could go above 40 milliamps, yes. . . .
`. . . .
`Q. There would be zero charging current through the battery?
`A. If it was truly an open circuit, which would mean an interruption in the current pathway,
`then you would not expect to see current through the battery, because you, effectively,
`interrupted the -- the current path, through a failure mechanism.
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 60:9-62:14; Axonics Post Remand Br.
`(IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 32 of 74
`
`
`
`NO DISPUTE: VOLTAGE AND CURRENT ARE TWO
`DIFFERENT VALUES
`
`Q. You agree that voltage is a value, correct?
`A. Voltage is a value, yes.
`. . . .
`Q. And you agree that -- that current is a value?
`A. I agree that current is a value, yes.
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 22:18-19,
`35:12-14; Axonics Post Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-
`00680, Paper 79) at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33
`
`Page 33 of 74
`
`
`
`NO DISPUTE: VOLTAGE AND CURRENT ARE TWO
`DIFFERENT VALUES
`
`Q. You agree that the voltage between nodes 51 and 52 and the charging current that passes
`through the internal battery are different values, correct?
`A. I would consider them to be different values, yes.
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 79:21-25; Axonics Post
`Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 2 (“current and voltage are
`‘different values’”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`Page 34 of 74
`
`
`
`AGENDA
`
`• The Prior Art Meets The “Two Inputs” Limitations As Construed
`• Medtronic’s Additional, Erroneous Claim Construction Cannot
`Disprove Unpatentability
`• Medtronic’s Remaining Arguments Fail
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`Page 35 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC SEEKS A DIFFERENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Medtronic says both inputs must be “provided” to charger and “determined”
`by the charger
`“But Petitioner does not show that the voltage across those leads is ever provided to the
`external power source, and therefore the external power source cannot vary its power
`output based on that voltage.”
`
`“Moreover, Petitioner does not explain how the voltage across leads 51 and 52 can be
`determined from the current through [resistor] R9 and simply alleges that the current
`through [resistor] R9 will be increased if the zener diode turns on.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 65 (Amended PO Sur-Reply) at 14-15
`(contains bracketed text); IPR2020-00680, Paper 68
`(Amended PO Sur-Reply) at 11-12.
`
`Page 36 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC SEEKS A DIFFERENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Medtronic’s expert says both values must be “communicated”/“telemetered”
`back to the charger
`“While various operating conditions may influence the value of this parameter, it is
`nevertheless the only parameter and only value that is communicated to the external power
`source.”
`
`“Dr. Panescu’s interpretation that a voltage or current at these components represents a
`‘separate input’ in Schulman is incorrect, because the sole input that is telemetered back to
`the external charger is the input derived from the amount of current flowing through R9.”
`
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Exhibit 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal
`Decl.), ¶¶ 6-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37
`
`Page 37 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC SEEKS A DIFFERENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Medtronic says inputs must be “distinguished” by the charger
`
`“Petitioner’s post-remand arguments rely on alleged separate inputs that are both on
`Schulman’s implant side (Ex. 1005, FIGS. 2-3) and thus must be sent/provided to the
`external charger. And if the inputs cannot be distinguished by the charger, the ‘separate
`inputs’ requirement would be meaningless.”
`
`Medtronic Post-Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712, Paper
`77 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 80), at 3-4 n.1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38
`
`Page 38 of 74
`
`
`
`THE BOARD’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Board did not require charger to “determine” or “distinguish”
`
`“Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not sufficiently supported its proposed
`construction and determine that the Value Limitation and the Measured Current Limitation
`require two separate inputs to the external power source.”
`
`“Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not sufficiently supported its proposed
`construction and determine that the Value Limitation and the Signal Limitation, as well as
`the Value Limitation and the Measured Voltage Limitation both require two separate inputs
`to the external power source.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 42 (FWD) at 26, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 76) at 4;
`IPR2020-00680, Paper 45 (FWD) at 26, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 79) at 4.
`
`Page 39 of 74
`
`
`
`THE BOARD’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Board addressed whether value/signal and value/measured current or voltage
`had to be separate, not whether they must be sent or distinguished
`“In short, according to Patent Owner, ‘a value associated with said current’ may not be one
`and the same as either ‘a signal proportional to said current’ or ‘a measured voltage
`associated with said current.’”
`
`.
`“In short, according to Patent Owner, claims 1, 5, and 9 should be construed such that ‘a
`value associated with said current’ and ‘a measured current associated with said current’
`may not be one and the same, as Petitioner asserts.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 42 (FWD) at 19, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 76) at 4;
`IPR2020-00680, Paper 45 (FWD) at 18-19, Axonics Post Remand (Paper 79) at 4.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40
`
`Page 40 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC’S CONSTRUCTION IS ERRONEOUS
`Claims do not require charger-side software that “determines” which value
`•
`148 Patent
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`Claim 3
`value associated with said current passing through said internal battery; and
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`signal proportional to said current passing through said internal battery.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`148 Patent
`Claim 6
`
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`value associated with said current passing through said internal battery; and
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power source output
`based on a measured voltage associated with said current passing through said
`internal battery.
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`value associated with said current passing through said internal power source;
`wherein said external power source automatically varies its power output based on a
`measured current associated with said current passing through said internal power
`source.
`IPR2020-00680 & IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1001; Axonics Post Remand (IPR2020-00712, Paper 76; IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`41
`
`758 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`Page 41 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC’S CONSTRUCTION IS ERRONEOUS
`Claims do not require charger to distinguish the two inputs.
`
`Q. Nothing in the claims themselves says that the charger needs to be able to distinguish
`the values, the two values, correct?
`. . . .
`THE WITNESS: Those words verbatim do not appear in the claims, that’s correct. The
`question is how a person ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of those
`claims based on not only the claim language itself, but also in the context of the
`specification, figures, prosecution history, et cetera. And all of that was addressed, to a
`large degree, in my opening declarations, which resulted in the Board adopting the
`construction that these claims each require two separate inputs to the external power source
`or charger.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712, Ex. 1020 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep.), 103:25-104:17;
`Axonics Post Remand Br. (IPR2020-00712, Paper 76 & IPR2020-00680, Paper 79) at 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42
`
`Page 42 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC’S CONSTRUCTION IS ERRONEOUS
`Medtronic cites no support for requiring the charger to “determine” or
`“distinguish” the two inputs.
`“Moreover, Petitioner does not explain how the voltage across leads 51 and 52 can be
`determined from the current through [resistor] R9 and simply alleges that the current
`through [resistor] R9 will be increased if the zener diode turns on. (Reply, [12-13 / 10-11].)
`Therefore, even with its new arguments and evidence, Petitioner has not established that
`Schulman discloses two inputs as required by claims [3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 / 1, 5, and 9].
`(Ex. 2010, ¶8.)”
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 65 (Amended PO Sur-Reply) at 15 (contains first bracketed text);
`IPR2020-00680, Paper 68 (Amended PO Sur-Reply) at 12 (contains second bracketed text).
`
`“Thus, Dr. Panescu has failed to show where Schulman discloses the requirement of claims [3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 / 1, 5,
`and 9] that two separate inputs to the external power source are used to vary the power output of the external power
`source.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712 & IPR2020-00680, Ex. 2010 (Mihran Decl.), ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43
`
`Page 43 of 74
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC’S CONSTRUCTION IS ERRONEOUS
`Medtronic cites no support for requiring the charger to “determine” or
`“distinguish” the two inputs.
`
`“Petitioner’s post-rema
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
