PTAB

IPR2019-01448

Auris Health Inc v. Intuitive Surgical Operations Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Robotic Surgery System
  • Brief Description: The ’200 patent is directed to robotic surgery systems for aligning the motion and structure of robotically controlled manipulators and end effectors. The system includes multiple manipulator arms mounted on a cart, where each arm has joints with brakes and potentiometers to measure joint position, allowing a computer to determine the end effector's position and orientation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Faraz and Ohm - Claims 1 and 10-12 are obvious over Faraz in view of Ohm.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Faraz (Patent 5,824,007) and Ohm (Patent 5,784,542).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Faraz, which discloses an "adjustable surgical stand" well-adapted for robotic surgery, teaches most limitations of the challenged claims. Faraz’s system includes a base, multiple multi-jointed arms, surgical implement holders (end effectors), and releasable pneumatic brakes on the joints. Faraz explicitly suggests that its stand can be converted into a robotic device by affixing position sensors and connecting motors using "known means." Petitioner contended that Ohm, a patent for a microsurgical teleoperated robot, provides the specific details for these "known means." Ohm teaches a robotic arm with a servomechanism, encoders for position sensing, and detailed kinematic computations (forward and inverse) for transforming coordinates between the robot's base and its tip. The combination of Faraz's foundational structure with Ohm's detailed robotic control and sensing systems renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA), starting with Faraz's surgical stand, would have been motivated to implement its suggestion to create a robotic surgery device. Faraz directs a POSA to use "known means" to motorize and control the joints. A POSA would have looked to analogous systems in the field, such as Ohm, which provides a detailed description of such known means, including servomechanisms, position sensors, and the necessary kinematic software for precise control.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success. The nature of robotics involves integrating known components like motors, sensors, and control systems. Combining Ohm's well-understood control and sensor systems with Faraz's mechanical structure was presented as a routine engineering task.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Faraz, Lathrop, and Tarn - Claims 14 and 17 are obvious over Faraz in view of Lathrop and Tarn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Faraz (Patent 5,824,007), Lathrop (Patent 5,555,897), and Tarn (a 1986 IEEE article on robotic arm control).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Faraz's disclosure of a two-arm surgical stand. Petitioner argued Lathrop teaches key features of the brake system recited in claims 14 and 17. Lathrop discloses a robotic arm with a brake system controlled by a single actuator switch, allowing an operator to release the brakes with one hand while manually repositioning the arm. Critically for claim 17, Lathrop’s brakes are "biased in a locked position when no power is applied" as a safety feature. Petitioner further argued that Tarn teaches the sensor system limitations related to multi-arm coordination. Tarn provides a detailed mathematical model for the coordinated control of two robotic arms, including using joint position signals to calculate the relative position and orientation between the two end effectors to avoid collisions and perform cooperative tasks.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA starting with Faraz's two-arm system and seeking to automate it would be motivated to improve ease of use and safety. Lathrop's single-actuator brake release and biased-locked configuration directly address these goals. When automating Faraz’s two arms, a POSA would require a method to coordinate their movements. Tarn provides a well-documented solution for precisely this problem, teaching how to use joint sensor data to calculate relative positions and prevent the arms from colliding.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected success in this combination. Integrating Lathrop's straightforward brake switch and safety-biased mechanism into Faraz's system was described as a predictable modification. Likewise, applying Tarn's established mathematical models for multi-arm coordination to Faraz's system would have been a well-understood task for a robotics engineer.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges by adding Sackier (a 1994 journal article) to the combinations above (Grounds 2 and 4). Sackier was primarily used to further support the teaching of a single "disable" button that allows a surgeon to make robotic joints passive for easy manual repositioning.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "brake system": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "a system that applies friction to restrict movement of the fixable joints." This construction was based on the patent's description of suitable brakes and the function of inhibiting articulation, which Petitioner argued a POSA would understand as being achieved through friction.
  • "surgical end effector": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a device at the end of a surgical instrument for manipulating (cutting, grasping or otherwise acting on) body tissue." This construction was based on the patent's exemplary list of articulated and non-articulated tools, such as scissors, graspers, and cutting blades.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 10-12, 14, and 17 of the ’200 patent as unpatentable.