[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Tamuels versus Trivascular.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Mr. Patruzzi, please proceed whenever you're ready.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
And please the court, only nine months ago, this court affirmed the validity of the claims of this patent focused on the feature of the inflatable protrusions that made it different from the prior art, different from the Samuel's 851 to the same inventor, in fact.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
And now under the guise of claim construction, this court and the appellees seek to nullify that decision in effect by importing limitations into all... Am I correct from reading your stipulation that

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
If we affirm on any of the district court's claim constructions, you lose.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
That would be an accurate statement, only to the extent that though there seems to be some question as to stipulation with respect to some of the elements.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
We were very clear we were only stipulating if, for example, the means for injecting required this movable part valve.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
And that was clear in the judge's decision.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
That's why we stipulated.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
The same is true on stipulation on the inflatable cuff.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
The court in footnote nine indicated that the entire cuff had to be inflatable.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
And we were concerned that if the cuff had a flap or some additional feature, that somehow that would be a non-infringement.

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
So we stipulated only to the extent that the decision seemed clear, it required the entire cuff to be inflatable.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
Not just portion.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
As opposed to just the protrusions.

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
Your argument is the protrusions alone could be inflated and the cuff does not have to have an inflatable chamber.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
claim one does not decide inflatable chamber explicitly so we don't believe claim one requires inflatable chamber but it does require an inflatable cuff it does and as those you said your argument unless I'm mistaken because you're kind of fighting me and I'm surprised no you're correct but okay because your argument as I understand it is if the protrusions on the cuff are inflatable that satisfies the inflatable cuff element of claim one yes yes and that was discussed at the last hearing on the IPR affirms

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
But throughout the patent, it repeatedly refers to inflatable protrusions and the inflatable cuff as separate elements.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
Well, the inflatable protrusions are part of the cuff called out by the claim.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
And we believe that since they are part of the cuff, and they are the operative element that upon inflation would bring to life, so to speak, the cylindrical cuff, it's sufficient that if they are inflated,

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
The cuff then is an inflatable cuff because they are integral to it.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
It's part of, it's listed as in the first element that the cuff includes these friction enhancing outer surface featuring the inflatable protrusions.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And that was the patentable feature that there were these inflatable protrusions in the cuff.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
And I think, you know, turning to the way the district court construed these claims with respect to the means for injection,

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
You know, these claims were identified as 112 paragraph 6 quite clearly.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
And during the IPR... Can I ask you a question about that, since you've turned to that?

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
In the red brief, Trivascular says, there can be no reasonable dispute that the valve and inflation tubing are also required structure.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Nothing in the patent suggests that the valve and tubing assembly is not necessary, or that inflating and injecting are done only by the inflation syringe.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
Tellingly, nowhere does the 575 patent describe any embodiment or inflation process that does not require a valve.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
Is tribascular correct about that?

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
First, this is a structural apparatus.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
Tell me then where 575 discloses the inflating or injecting is done only by the inflation syringe and doesn't require a valve.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
Well, at column four, lines 34 to 35, it says

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
The cup is inflated by way of an inflation syringe with an inflation material.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
And the drawings all show the inflation syringe and the tubing.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
During the IPR, it was identified even by Trivascular, in numerous cases, that the inflation this means was met by inflation tubing and a syringe.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
I know it was a different standard in a BRI, but it seems anomalous that you can have a standard of reasonable interpretation that has two elements.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
syringe in the tubing.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
Then we go to a district court, and under a Phillips construction, we had an entirely new term, new structure, the valve, which is specifically called out subsequently in the claim as the third element.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
And when you look at the dependent claims, 9 and 19, it talks about the breakaway valve being separable from the means for injecting or the means for inflation.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
So we think, to what order are you still in the art, which is really the touchstone of any analysis here,

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
reading this claim, they would have read the structure of the means for element to be the tube and the syringe.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
And it's obviously connected to the cuff, but it doesn't require the valve to perform that function of injecting or inflating.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
So in our view, one ordinary skill in the art would clearly read this particular element to be just the syringe and the tubing.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
Can that breakaway valve perform a sealing function on its own?

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
It can.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
The breakaway valve is the very mechanism that holds that tubing into the cuff.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
When you are inflating, the inflation material goes in, fills up the channels, and then it stops flowing because that seal that's formed by that breakaway valve does not allow it to go out.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
If you don't have that breakaway connection with a circumferential fitting, then the fluid would just flow right out.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
I mean, the claimed term is a valve.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
The inventor intended to use a very broad generic term.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Is the breakaway valve not part of valve 37?

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
As disclosed in the preferred embodiment, it is part of that combination.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
No question.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
But the inventor clearly talked about a breakaway valve.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
He talked about the mitre valve.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
And then he claimed a valve.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
In fact, the dependent claims again say later wherein the valve is a breakaway design or wherein the valve is a mitre.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
Again, we think that to one of ordinary skill in the art, reading these claims that just say a valve, it wouldn't be limited by either of the other two that are mentioned in the patent.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
They are exemplary embodiments.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, what you have here and what we ended up with is a picture claim that is exactly what is in the patent and defeats the very purpose of the patent.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
First, it excludes the preferred embodiment of using a hardening fluid because you only need that breakaway valve or that seal valve to do that.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
And more importantly, if you read the claims, they all talk about inflatable and deflatable cuff.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
The patent's very clear that the function of this inflatable and deflatable cuff is to allow for repositioning of the cuff after an initial inflation.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
So you inject the fluid, the cuff is positioned, you look on fluoroscope and see, is it in the right place?

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
You decide it's not.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
You pull back on the syringe, it sort of collapses a little bit, and you move it.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
You can't do that if you have this mitre valve, which was called out by the district court, or a movable flap-type valve.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
They are, by definition, backflow preventers.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
They would not allow the fluid to come back out.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
The only valve that works in that context is this breakaway valve, the one that the inventor called out and called a valve.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
So we think not only are these constructions wrong on the patent, but like I say, they defeat the very purpose of the invention.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
But let's go back to my inflatable cuff

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
question, if you don't mind.

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
The claim itself says, featuring inflatable protrusions, including at least one circumferential ridge, disposed about the inflatable cuff.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
Those are two different structural elements.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
There are inflatable protrusions and an inflatable cuff.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
I don't see how any plain language reading of that could allow the protrusions to be the inflatable portion of the cuff.

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
because it actually has two structural elements and only two in that element, inflatable protrusions disposed about an inflatable cuff.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
How can you say, oh, well, the inflatable protrusions satisfies the inflatable requirement to the cuff?

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
It would render it entirely superfluous.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
Well, I understand that the inflatable protrusions are in fluid communication with other aspects of the cuff.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
Our concern with that element was not so much with the inflatable

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
protrusions versus the cuff, it was that the judge required that the claim be completely inflatable or entirely inflatable, almost like a consisting of.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
You know, we did not stipulate because it said there was an inflatable chamber.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
We believe they do have an inflatable chamber in addition to the inflatable protrusions.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
The issue we had was that he construed it to be entirely inflatable.

[00:09:45] Speaker 03:
Can you show me in the stipulation where that's the case?

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
Because I didn't understand you to say

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
I'm just a little confused.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
I want to make sure I know.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
Appendix 27.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
We say here that we stipulate to this particular term.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
Appendix where?

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
27.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
And we identify for this very reason, because we didn't want to have this gotcha that we somehow had stipulated to non-infringement only because of this inflatable chamber issue.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
We say it includes an inflatable cuff.

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
What was paragraph?

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
Oh, paragraph 13.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
So we identified

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
that it must include an inflatable, must mean the entire structure is inflated as set forth in footnote two of the decision.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
So it was our concern that if the entire cuff has to be inflatable, whatever that means, that potentially if there's an additional structure on the cuff that's not inflated, like a flap, which does happen to be the case in some of these cuffs, or has a part of the cuff that is just a single ply,

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
as opposed to having the chamber and or the inflatable protrusions, we didn't want to be told then later are you stipulated to something that they actually infringed.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
So we made very clear in the stipulation, which was agreed to obviously by the defendants, that that was our concern about that construction, that it be entirely inflatable.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
Okay, so did I understand you right that they do have both inflatable protrusions and an inflatable chamber within their cuff?

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Is that what you say the facts suggest?

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, they do.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
They have these channels that connect all the different protrusions and those are inflatable chambers.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
And they are part and parcel of how this entire structure gets created in effect by its inflation and then left in the body in that state.

[00:11:37] Speaker 01:
Again, my concern simply was we did not want to stipulate

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
unless it was clear the stipulation was only because this phrase that had to be entirely inflatable or whatever the court used, the entire structure is inflated.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
We would not have stipulated otherwise to that term.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
Now, with respect to the valve itself, he didn't seem, I mean, I understand the argument you're making to me, but the district court, he didn't seem to understand that to be the argument.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
Because at appendix page 17, which is page 17 of his opinion, as well as footnote nine, he says you, he constantly characterizes your argument as an inflatable cuff as an inflatable cuff simply if it has inflatable protrusions.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
He doesn't seem to understand your argument.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Well, I was concerned because he says here, the cuff is the entire structure.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Thus an inflatable cuff must mean the entire structure is inflated.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
No, but then look, come on.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
But then the entire structure is inflated because he has just said you have said in the previous sentence that inflatable cuff can have only inflatable protrusions.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
And then look in the text preceding the footnote where Trivascular argues that a cuff does, Dr. Samuels argues a cuff can have an inflatable chamber, but such is not required.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
It looks, I may be wrong, but it certainly looks to me like the arguments you made to this district court

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
was that no inflatable chamber was required in an inflatable cuff under claim term one.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
You did argue that.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Claim one didn't.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
I don't understand you to have defended against summary judgment on the ground that there can be an inflatable chamber, but just the entire thing, every aspect of it, doesn't have to have been inflated.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
That's not the

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
That's why I'm confused right now, because the argument you're making to me, it's not an unreasonable argument by any stretch.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
It just doesn't seem to parallel for me what I understood this case to have been about at the district court and what he found.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
We had argued that claim one, by its very terms, does not have an inflatable chamber.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Claim 14 and 23 did.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
So we were urging a construction that claim one did not require an additional inflatable chamber other than the protrusions.

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
And he then found it did.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
He then ruled that,

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
in the way he wrote the decision that it did and made this comment that the entire structure had to be inflatable.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
We would not have stipulated to non-infringement because the device they have does have protrusions and chambers.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
So out of an abundance of caution, we made very clear in the stipulation, that's why we quoted and defendants agreed to this quote right out of footnote nine that we were stipulating because of that.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
In any event, I just want to address the valve term.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
We just think the term was used very broadly.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
It's a generic term.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
The patent wasn't granted because of the valve.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
And here we now have the narrowest version of the valve possible because of this theory that somehow it has to work only in the most- You are well into your rebuttal time.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Do you want to save any?

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, I will save some.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
Very good.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
Mr. Burgess?

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
Bill Burgess for the appellees.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
Looks like Mr. Petruzzi got into all three issues in this case, and I'd like to get into all of them.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
The first thing I'd like to talk about is the means.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
I think Judge Wallach asks, where is a disclosure in the patent where the cuff is inflated without the need for this valve?

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
And I believe Mr. Petruzzi pointed to appendix 60, column 4,

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
lines 33 and 34.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
That's the paragraph that starts about halfway down the page, referring back to figure one.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
And the point I'd make about that is that is not a separate embodiment.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
Figure four and figures four A and four B show the same thing.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
If you look at the top of column three, it says, figures four A and four B are enlarged partially broken away perspective view, showing the detail of the mitre, or mitre, I've heard it pronounced both ways, valve and breakaway valve connections.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
of the stent of figure 1 and engaged and disengaged positions, respectively.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
So figure 1 and figures 4a and 4b are talking about the same thing.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
And so it necessarily means that the discussion of figures 4a and 4b, which is right above that, is talking about the valve.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
And that's where the specification clearly links a valve to this function of inflating and deflating.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
And this is a means plus function claim.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
This is not the sort of cases this court sometimes sees where there's a dispute over whether this is a 112f claim.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
Everyone agrees.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
And so under 112F, the question is, what is the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification?

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
The way the Scorts-Williamson case put it, what did the patentee clearly link or associate with that structure?

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
And so we looked at the specification to see what structure Dr. Samuels clearly associated with this function.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
And in column four, lines eight through 10, we have, the cuff is inflated and deflated

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
by means of a valve.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
Outside of the claims and two general statements in the background, that is the only place the word means appears in the specification.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
And then the next, at line 20, it says mating end separates opposing leaflets 51 and 53 so that cuff may be inflated or deflated.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
Now leaflets 51 and 53 are part of the valve.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
And that whole paragraph, let's say the second paragraph in column four and the third paragraph in column four, describes a mechanism consisting of a syringe, a tubing, and a valve

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
that all work together to deliver inflation material into the cuff.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
I think Mr. Petruzzi was also talking about the valve and said that what he calls a breakaway valve can't conceal by itself.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the patent he pointed to that's attorney argument.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
I just don't think it works that way.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
Everything in the patent that describes sealing specifically refers to a valve with leaflets or flaps or a movable part.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
One example I point the court to is

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
Appendix 60, again, this is the same paragraph I was just talking about.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
Column 4, lines 29 and 32, where it says, upon withdrawal of the mating end of inflation tubing, as shown in figure 3B, opposing leaflets 51 and 53 of the mitre valve close to seal the inflated cuff 17.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
The leaflets of the valve close to seal the inflated cuff.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
That is the mitre valve with the flaps that we're talking about that does the sealing.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
I think I should address issue three, I think some of the courts, the stipulation, to be clear and to be sure that we're not confusing or misleading the court.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
We have a disagreement about whether each, all three issues are independently sufficient.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
We both agree that if the court agrees with the district court's construction of the means, that's enough to resolve this appeal.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
We both agree that valve is sufficient to resolve this appeal.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
The terms of the stipulation say that this inflatable and deflatable cuff issue only goes to claim one.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
Our argument, it's

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
The logic is extremely simple.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
We think it follows from the logic of the stipulation that that necessarily also means that claim 14 and claim 23 aren't infringed because I think the questions brought out the whole dispute was whether the inflatable and deflatable cuff of claim one also requires a chamber or not.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
And so once the district court found that it does, if you look at the district court's construction and appendix 16 and compare that to the actual text of claims 14 and 23,

[00:19:26] Speaker 00:
The whole dispute is over whether there's an inflatable and deflatable chamber.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
And we think it follows from the logic that that makes sense.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
Do you think the district court's construction requires an entirely inflatable chamber or just an impart inflatable chamber?

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
I think it requires that the cuff be the same inflatable cuff as 14 and 23.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
To answer your question as directly as I can, this turns on how you read footnote 9 in the district court stipulate.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
Do any of your devices have a partially inflatable chamber?

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
I don't want to speak to that because I'm not absolutely certain.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
I don't think they do.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
I don't think there's a chamber, for example, that goes like halfway around the cuff or anything like that, but I'm honestly not sure and it's not on the record and I don't want to speculate or say something wrong.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
Dr. Samuel's argument that this inflatable and deflatable cuff might not necessarily also go to claims 14 and 23.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
that turns on how you read footnote nine of the district court's opinion.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
Now that's an appendix 17, sorry, the stipulations of appendix 27 which we're looking at and that cites appendix 17 footnote nine of the district court's opinion.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
We think the better reading of that is that the district court is just once again rejecting this argument that if the protrusions are enough.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
the inflation of the protrusions make an inflatable cop.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
Yes, exactly.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
Isn't that the only argument they made to the district court?

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
I don't recall, though I may not have a perfect memory of this case, I don't recall them making the argument they make now, which is the accused device does have an inflatable chamber and inflatable protrusions, and that that should preclude summary judgment.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
I thought throughout the entire briefing below, and quite frankly in their blue brief on appeal to us,

[00:21:12] Speaker 03:
They were arguing that inflatable protrusions satisfy the inflatable cuff limitation.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
And that's my understanding too.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
And I can cite the court to a few things for that.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
First of all, at appendix 17 footnote nine, the footnote that all this turns on, they cite a supplemental brief Dr. Samuel's filed and that's at appendix 1450 where he's making this argument.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
And on that argument, again, he's arguing that Trivascular is improperly trying to take the chamber of claims 14 and 23 and put it in claim one.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
Other places I'd cite the court to are page 44, the blue brief.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
The bottom of, actually this page didn't make it into the appendix because no one cited it, but Samuel's opening claim construction brief.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
It's docket number 81 in the district court at page 19.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
And also Samuel's reply claim construction brief in the district court, which is docket number 84 at page 12.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
And neither of these last two things are in the appendix because they weren't discussed in the brief.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
And the last thing I'd cite the court for this is also, at appendix 17, this is the page with the footnote on it.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
The district court describes whether the inflatable chamber is in claim one or not as the crux of the dispute.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
So yes, this is what the parties were arguing about.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
And as the questions brought out, in claim one separately recites an inflatable cuff and inflatable protrusions.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
One more thing I'd point the court to is the diagram at page six of our right brief.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
That's figure one and figure two shown next to each other with some coloring in.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
I mean, that shows what's going on.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
Claim 1 doesn't recite the words inflatable and deflatable chamber, but it claims an inflatable and deflatable cuff and has an inner surface and outer surface.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
And figures 1 and 2, shown at page 6 of our red brief, show what's going on there.

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
If the court has any further questions, I'm happy to answer them about any claims otherwise.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Burgess.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
I just want to say I think it is mitre, although it could be both.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
But the reason I say that is because of mitre boxes and the way they work.

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
That's why it's called it.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
I've always thought it was called a mitre.

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
Mr. Patruzzi, we'll restore two minutes of rebuttal time.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
I just want to point out that one of the preferred embodiments of this invention is the use of a hardening fluid.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
And when using the hardening fluid, you inject the fluid, you wait until it hardens, and then you pull away at the breakaway valve.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
That's how it works.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
That's how the Trivascular Device is shown in the video that was submitted by defendants.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
And you can look at that video and see that there are a series of inflatable protrusions, and there also are some inflatable chambers, some of which don't go all the way around, some which do.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
And it's been our view that claim one can be an inflatable cuff without

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
having a separate chamber.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
You can have an inflatable cuff without it having its own chamber.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
Claim one doesn't recite that claims 14 and 23 did.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
Now with respect to this idea that the patent talks about something by means of a valve.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
And if that's somehow the way someone of ordinary skill would read this patent.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
You know, I came to court by means for transporting a car and I came by means of a street.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
That doesn't mean the street becomes part of the means for transporting.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
And in this case, the means for injecting are quite clear.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
They are just the syringe in the tube.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
It's connected to the cuff, obviously.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
But this whole patent is a structural claim.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
And we don't believe that the separately recited valve, the one that's specifically identified in claims 9 and 19 as being separable from the means for injecting, would be part of the means for injecting.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:24:52] Speaker 03:
Thank both councils.