Best Medical International, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

IPR2020-00956 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Date: April 21, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and ELEKTA INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-000761
Patent 7,015,490 B2
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.64

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (“Varian”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, and 17–19 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,015,490 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’490 patent”). Patent Owner, Best

1 Petitioner from IPR2020-00956 has joined this proceeding.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
2
Medical International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response
(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Varian also filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 8),
and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 9). Taking into
account the arguments presented in these papers, we determined that the
information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable
likelihood that Varian would prevail with respect to its unpatentability
challenges. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on
April 24, 2020, as to all challenged claims and all grounds of
unpatentability. Paper 14 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
Elekta Inc. (“Elekta”) subsequently filed a similar petition and motion
for joinder in IPR2020-00956. See IPR2020-00956, Papers 2, 3. We
instituted an inter partes review and joined Elekta as a party to this
proceeding in a limited capacity. See IPR2020-00956, Paper 8. Henceforth,
we refer collectively to Varian and Elekta as “Petitioner.”
During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 32, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
Owner Response (Paper 37, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a
Sur-reply. Paper 41 (“PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing was held on
January 28, 2021, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record.
Paper 52 (“Tr.”).
Petitioner filed a Declaration of Timothy D. Solberg, Ph.D.
(Ex. 1002) with its Petition and a Declaration of Sha Chang, Ph.D.
(Ex. 1023) with its Reply. Petitioner also filed a Declaration of Sylvia Hall-
Ellis, Ph.D. (Ex. 1011) with its Petition. Patent Owner filed declarations of
Daniel J. Chase with its Preliminary Response (Ex. 2002) and with its
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
3
Response (Ex. 2035). The parties also filed transcripts of the depositions of
Dr. Solberg (Ex. 2032) and Mr. Chase (Ex. 1025).
Petitioner filed a motion to exclude certain testimony from
Mr. Chase. Paper 45 (“Exclude Mot.”). Patent Owner filed an opposition
(Paper 47, “Exclude Opp.”), and Petitioner filed a reply (Paper 51, “Exclude
Reply”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
claims 1, 4, and 17–19 of the ’490 patent. For the reasons discussed below,
Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1, 4, and 17–19 of the ’490 patent are unpatentable.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Real Parties-in-Interest
Varian identifies Varian Medical Systems, Inc., VMS International
AG, VMS International Holdings, Inc., VMS Netherlands Holdings, Inc.,
and VMS Nederland BV as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 2. Elekta identifies
Elekta Limited (UK), Elekta Holdings U.S., Inc., and Elekta AB as real
parties-in-interest. IPR2020-00956, Paper 2, 1. Patent Owner identifies
Best Medical International, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 1.

B. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following proceedings related to the
’490 patent (Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1–2; IPR2020-00956, Paper 2, 1–2):
Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03409-MLB (N.D.
Ga.);
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
4
Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta AB, No. 1:18-cv-01600-MN (D. Del.);
Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01599 (D.
Del.); and
Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical Int’l, Inc., IPR2020-00067.
We also note that Petitioner has challenged other patents owned by
Patent Owner in IPR2020-00053, IPR2020-00071, IPR2020-00072,
IPR2020-00075, and IPR2020-00077. We denied institution in all of these
cases except for IPR2020-00071 and IPR2020-00072, which are pending.

C. The ’490 patent
The ’490 patent relates to “optimization of collimator angles for
multileaf collimators (‘MLC’) used in intensity modulated radiation therapy
[IMRT] treatment.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–31. In particular, the ’490 patent
discloses an “algorithm to determine collimator angles in favoring, or
enhancing, IMRT radiation therapy treatment plan delivery efficiency.” Id.
at 2:1–4. An intended advantage of the algorithm is to minimize the
maximum travel distance of the MLC leaf pairs. Id. a 2:14–19.
The method disclosed in the ’490 patent utilizes a “cost function
obtained by combining the prior algorithm based upon Brahme’s orientation
theory with the algorithm utilized in the present invention.”2 Id. at 2:7–11.
The cost function includes a delivery efficiency portion that is “designed to
enhance delivery efficiency by reducing at least one of a number of radiation
beam segments and reducing a number of radiation beam monitor units
[MUs] required for delivery of the desired prescription.” Id. at 2:35–40.

2 Brahme’s orientation theory prioritizes conformity with the targets/lesions
being treated. Id. at 5:65–6:1.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
5
The cost function also includes a target conformity portion “to enhance
conformity of the radiation beam arrangement to a target shape as viewed
through the opening in the multi-leaf collimator.” Id. at 2:40–42. “[A]
preference can be selected between delivery efficiency and target conformity
by assigning weights to the delivery efficiency and target conformity
portions of the function.” Id. at 3:29–34.
The ’490 patent issued from an application that was filed August 11,
2004, which claims priority to a provisional application filed on August 11,
2003. Id., codes (22), (60). As discussed below, Petitioner’s asserted
references qualify as prior art relative to the August 11, 2003, filing date of
the provisional application.

D. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 4
depends from claim 1, and claims 18 and 19 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 17. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims:
1. A computer-implemented method of determining a
collimator angle of a multi-leaf collimator having an opening
and a plurality of multi-leaf collimator leaf pairs for closing
portions of the opening to form a radiation beam arrangement
having a plurality of radiation beam segments to apply radiation
to a tumor target, the method comprising the steps of:
calculating an initial radiation beam arrangement
according to a desired prescription; and
changing the radiation beam arrangement by
incorporating a first cost function to determine the collimator
angle of the multi-leaf collimator, the first cost function
including both a second cost function to enhance delivery
efficiency by reducing a number of radiation beam segments
and reducing a number of radiation beam monitor units required
for delivery of the desired prescription and a third cost function
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
6
to enhance conformity of the radiation beam arrangement to a
target shape.
Id. at 10:11–29.

E. Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0086530
A1, filed Sept. 25, 2002, published May 8, 2003 (Ex. 1003,
“Otto”);
U.S. Patent No. 6,853,705 B2, filed Mar. 28, 2003, issued
Feb. 8, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Chang”);
Webb, S. (1993). The Physics of Three-Dimensional
Radiation Therapy: Conformal Radiotherapy, Radiosurgery and
Treatment Planning. CRC Press (Ex. 1005, “Webb”); and
Mohan, R. et al. (2000). The Impact of Fluctuations in
Intensity Patterns on the Number of Monitor Units and the
Quality and Accuracy of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy.
Medical Physics, 27(6), 1226–37 (Ex. 1006, “Mohan”).

F. The Instituted Ground
We instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4, and 17–19 of the
’490 patent on the following ground (Dec. on Inst. 34), which is the only
ground presented in the Petition (Pet. 3):
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
1, 4, 17–19 103(a)3 Otto, Chang, Webb, Mohan

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the
’490 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
relevant amendment), the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations.4 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour,
571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).

B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which
. . . the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention” to prevent
hindsight bias. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
In determining the level of ordinary skill, various factors may be considered,
including the “types of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to
those problems; rapidity with which innovation are made; sophistication of

4 The record does not contain any evidence of secondary considerations of
nonobviousness.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
8
the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re
GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and
citation omitted). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a
higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated
level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a
higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).
Citing testimony from Dr. Solberg, Petitioner contends a person
having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been “a medical
physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical
physics, or a related field,” and would have had “two or more years of
experience in radiation oncology physics, treatment planning, treatment plan
optimization related to radiation oncology applications, and computer
programming associated with treatment plan optimization.” Pet. 4 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 13). Patent Owner cites testimony from Mr. Chase and contends
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “earned at least a master’s or
doctoral degree in radiation dosimetry, physics, medical physics, or
medicine, or equivalent disciplines” and would have had “three years of
clinical experience in radiation treatment planning.” PO Resp. 12 (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶ 81); see also Prelim. Resp. 16 (same definition). For purposes of
our Decision on Institution, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition. Dec. on
Inst. 7.
The parties’ proposed definitions do not differ greatly as to the level
and type of formal education, and the parties have not raised any dispute
related to formal education. Therefore, as to that aspect, we continue to
apply Patent Owner’s articulation that a person of ordinary skill in the art
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
9
would have “earned at least a master’s or doctoral degree in radiation
dosimetry, physics, medical physics, or medicine, or equivalent disciplines.”
See PO Resp. 12.
Nevertheless, we must resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the type
of experience that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed.5 At
the outset, we note that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art,
we consider the inventions of the ’490 patent as a whole, and not just
inventions related to individual claims. See Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva
Surgical, Inc., 764 F. App’x 873, 879 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (considering broader
teachings in a challenged patent’s specification, and not just the more
narrowly drawn claims, when evaluating the Board’s determination of a
level of ordinary skill).
The ’490 patent “relates to a method and apparatus for intensity
modulated radiation therapy treatment, and more specifically, a method and
apparatus for optimization of collimator angles for multileaf collimators
(‘MLC’) used in intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment.”
Ex. 1001, 1:27–31. This indicates that the relevant field of the invention
includes apparatus, and not just methods, for intensity modulated radiation
therapy treatment. Moreover, the specification of the ’490 patent states that
“the present method and apparatus for optimization of collimator angles in
IMRT inverse treatment planning systems” include embodiments that
“utilize a new algorithm to determine collimator angles in favoring, or

5 We note that the parties’ definitions do not differ meaningfully as to the
number of years’ experience that would have been possessed by an
ordinarily skilled artisan, i.e., “two or more” for Petitioner versus “three” for
Patent Owner. As mentioned below, we apply two years of experience.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
10
enhancing, IMRT radiation therapy treatment plan delivery efficiency.” Id.
at 1:65–2:4 (emphasis added). The specification also states that
“[e]mbodiments of the present invention also include a cost function
obtained by combining the prior algorithm based upon Brahme’s orientation
theory with the algorithm utilized in the present invention.” Id. at 2:7–11
(emphases added). These passages indicate that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have had familiarity with algorithm development in the context of an
IMRT inverse treatment planning system, particularly with regard to
treatment optimization using various algorithms.
Regarding the use of computers, the specification of the ’490 patent
states that one of its embodiments for determining an optimum collimator
angle of the multi-leaf collimator “preferably [is] computer-implemented.”
Id. at 2:26–32. The specification also states that “[t]he computations
associated with the cost function to determine the optimum collimator angle
and related software . . . can be processed on a computer or other
computational device known to those skilled in the art and which can be
associated with the selected radiation delivery apparatus.” Id. at 6:62–67
(emphasis added). The ’490 patent additionally includes an embodiment in
the form of
a computer readable medium that is readable by a computer
determining a collimator angle of a multi-leaf collimator having
an opening and a plurality of multi-leaf collimator pair leafs for
closing portions of the opening to form a radiation beam
arrangement having a plurality of radiation beam segments to
apply radiation to a tumor target. The computer readable
medium includes a set of instructions that, when executed by the
computer, causes the computer to perform various
operations . . . .
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
11
Id. at 3:58–67 (emphases added). Given that it was known in the art to use
computers for optimization calculations, and given that the ’490 patent
specification includes computer-implemented embodiments, we find that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience programming
computers with optimization algorithms like those disclosed in the
’490 patent.6 Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the experience that
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed.
For these reasons, and based on the entire trial record, we determine
that an ordinarily skilled artisan (1) would have earned at least a master’s or
doctoral degree in radiation dosimetry, physics, medical physics, or
medicine, or equivalent disciplines, and (2) would have had two years of
experience in radiation oncology physics, treatment planning, treatment plan
optimization related to radiation oncology applications, and computer
programming associated with treatment plan optimization.

C. Claim Interpretation
In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with
the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Accordingly, our claim construction standard

6 Mr. Chase attempts to draw a distinction between “formal computer
programming, i.e., designing and writing underlying computer code” and
“using computer programs associated with radiation therapy.” Ex. 2035
¶ 86. Given the disclosures about algorithm development discussed above,
we interpret the requisite experience in computer programming to be formal
computer programming. We reject Mr. Chase’s suggestion that it might
relate to merely using computer programs.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
12
is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Neither party puts forth terms for construction. See Pet. 11; PO
Resp. 13. We determine that no terms require explicit construction. See,
e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’
. . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).

D. Mr. Chase’s Testimony and Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
Patent Owner submits a declaration of Mr. Chase as an expert witness
in the field of the ’490 patent. See Ex. 2035. Petitioner moves to exclude
the entirety of Mr. Chase’s declaration (id.) under Federal Rule of Evidence
702 “because it is improper expert testimony on nonobviousness by a
witness that does not meet the minimum qualifications of a person ordinarily
skilled in the art.” Exclude Mot. 1. In particular, Petitioner cites its
assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
13
in “computer programming associated with treatment plan optimization.”
Id. at 3 (citing Pet. 4). Petitioner further notes Mr. Chase’s cross-
examination testimony in which he conceded that he did not “have the
ability to design and write computer code that implements the claimed cost
function of the ’490 patent.” Id. at 1 (citing Ex. 1025, 63:4–8). In the
alternative, Petitioner moves to exclude certain enumerated paragraphs from
Mr. Chase’s declaration that “express opinions specific to issues of treatment
planning system design, which is outside Mr. Chase’s area of expertise.”
See id. at 1, 14–15. Petitioner bases its alternative motion on Mr. Chase’s
cross-examination testimony from IPR2020-00072 in which he states he is
“not an expert in the design of treatment planning systems.” Id. at 11
(quoting IPR2020-00072, Ex. 1044, 68:4–5).7
Petitioner argues that “only one of ordinary skill in the art who is
qualified as a technical expert under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence may offer expert testimony on technical matters.” Exclude Mot. 2
(quoting Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, 450 F. App’x 956, 962–63
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential)) (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte
Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (emphasis by

7 Based on this testimony, Petitioner asks us to “take judicial notice of
Mr. Chase’s admission that he is not an expert in the design of treatment
planning systems.” Exclude Mot. 11 n.9. In its reply in support of the
motion to exclude, Petitioner further notes that “Patent Owner makes no
objection to Petitioner’s request for judicial notice . . . , nor does it dispute
Mr. Chase’s admitted lack of expertise in treatment planning system
design.” Exclude Reply 5. Under these circumstances, we take official
notice of Mr. Chase’s statement that he is “not an expert in the design of
treatment planning systems.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201; 37 C.F.R. § 42.62
(“Judicial notice means official notice”). We consider this to be a factor in
the weight we accord Mr. Chase’s opinions.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
14
Petitioner). Petitioner acknowledges, but seeks to distinguish, certain
guidance in our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide that there is “no
requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the
relevant field.” Id. at 8–9 (quoting Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 34 (Nov. 2019), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf) (citing SEB
S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Petitioner contends the case cited in support of this guidance, SEB, “is
inapposite” because the testimony at issue in SEB “did not relate to
invalidity . . . and did not include opinions on the disclosure of particular art
references, the motivation to combine those prior art references, or any other
issue that requires interpretation from the perspective of one having at least
ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 9 (quoting Morpho Detection, Inc. v. Smiths
Detection, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-498, 2012 WL 6004085, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Nov. 30, 2012)) (emphasis by Petitioner). According to Petitioner,
Mr. Chase does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art, so “his
opinions purportedly undertaken from the perspective of a person skilled in
the pertinent art cannot be ‘based on sufficient facts or data,’ nor can they be
‘the product of reliable principles and methods.’” Id. at 10 (quoting Fed. R.
Evid. 702).
Patent Owner contends there is an “‘adequate relationship’ between
Mr. Chase’s experience and the claimed inventions disclosed in the
’490 patent.” Exclude Opp. 8 (quoting SEB, 594 F.3d at 1373); see also id.
at 7–8 (discussing Mr. Chase’s experience as a medical physicist with
“extensive clinical experience including extensive work with linear
accelerators (‘LINACs’), treatment planning systems and their associated
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
15
software,” among other things). Patent Owner also seeks to distinguish the
holding of Sundance, a case Petitioner cites in support of its motion, based
on the fact that the proffered expert in that case was an expert in patent law
who did not have relevant experience in the pertinent art of the patent-in-
suit. Id. at 8 (citing Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1362). In contrast, Patent Owner
contends that Mr. Chase does possess the relevant expertise. See id. at 8–9.
As stated above, the ’490 patent relates to, inter alia, a method and
apparatus for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment. Ex. 1001,
1:27–31. We agree with Patent Owner (Exclude Opp. 7–8) that Mr. Chase’s
background in nuclear engineering and experience with treatment planning
systems is adequately related to the disclosed methods and apparatus for
intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment in the ’490 patent. See SEB,
594 F.3d at 1373; Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 12–16. In addition, Mr. Chase is not required
to have the exact experience in our adopted definition of the level of
ordinary skill, namely “computer programming associated with treatment
plan optimization.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 34; see also
Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an
expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite
admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). Thus,
Mr. Chase is qualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
We also note that the Board acts as both the gatekeeper and the
weigher of evidence. Similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board,
sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well positioned
to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented, including
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
16
giving it no weight. See, e.g., Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d
215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the
admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it
has been received . . . .”). For these reasons, we deny Petitioner’s motion to
exclude the entirety of Mr. Chase’s declaration. Rather than excluding
evidence that is allegedly confusing, misleading, unsupported, and/or
irrelevant, we will simply assign the weight that we consider to be
appropriate in our analysis.
Regarding Mr. Chase’s concession that he is “not an expert in the
design of treatment planning systems” (IPR2020-00072, Ex. 1044, 68:4–5),
we view this is an issue affecting the weight we accord Mr. Chase’s
testimony, rather than its admissibility. As such, we deny Petitioner’s
alternative motion to exclude certain enumerated paragraphs from
Mr. Chase’s declaration.
Despite our denial of Petitioner’s motion to exclude, we consider the
facts underlying Petitioner’s motion to be significant in our weighing of
Mr. Chase’s testimony vis-à-vis the testimony of Petitioner’s declarants
Dr. Solberg and Dr. Chang. According to Mr. Chase, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been a mere clinician who did not have the ability
to design and write computer code that implements the cost function of the
’490 patent. See Ex. 1025, 54:17–56:3, 61:12–63:14; Ex. 2035 ¶ 81. Yet it
strains credulity to say that a person working in the art of the ’490 patent
would not have had such fundamental capability that is relevant to methods
and systems like those disclosed in the ’490 patent itself. Moreover,
Mr. Chase’s analysis is distorted insofar as he testified about the
improbability of an ordinarily skilled artisan implementing the claimed cost
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
17
function in a treatment planning system using existing commercial systems
in 2003 in a clinical setting. Ex. 1025, 61:23–63:3. He additionally
considered FDA approval restrictions and liability issues. Id. In our view,
these restrictions on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art do
not square with the notion that the ’490 patent allegedly advanced the
existing art. Ex. 1001, 1:51–61 (noting that “the art ha[d] sought a method
and apparatus for determining the collimator angle before optimization in an
inverse treatment planning system which favors, or enhances, the delivery
efficiency by reducing the number of segments and MUs” and that no such
method or apparatus had existed before the ’490 patent). In addition, the
asserted prior art is not necessarily limited to commercial methods and
systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:58–65 (Chang comparing optimization
results of its disclosed method with those of “the IMFAST™ algorithm by
Siemens” and “conventional methods”); Ex. 1005, 233–35 (Webb describing
mathematical calculations behind Brahme’s theory); Ex. 1006, 1227–29
(Mohan describing mathematical algorithms for calculating beam-on time).
This indicates that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been confined
to commercialized systems as suggested by Mr. Chase. See, e.g., Ex. 1025,
55:7–56:3 (deposition testimony of Mr. Chase). For these reasons, we
discount Mr. Chase’s testimony related to system development in our
obviousness analysis below.

E. Obviousness Ground Based on Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan
Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1, 4, and 17–19 would
have been obvious over the combination of Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
18
Pet. 18–70; Pet. Reply 1–24. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
contentions. PO Resp. 13–64; PO Sur-reply 1–12.

1. Otto
Otto is a U.S. patent application publication directed to controlling
radiotherapy devices equipped with a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) to deliver
radiation treatments. Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. The MLC uses leaves to modify the
spatial distribution of the radiation beam by selectively blocking areas where
lower amounts of radiation are desired. Id. ¶ 4. Intensity modulation may
be used to tailor a radiation field to further reduce the amount of radiation
received by healthy tissue. Id. ¶ 5. A non-uniform field may be delivered
by delivering radiation in each of a set of uniform sub-fields, each having a
different MLC configuration. Id. ¶ 6. For static delivery, each sub-field is
shaped while the radiation beam is off and then a radiation sub-field is
delivered once the leaves are in position. Id. For dynamic delivery, the
leaves are moved and/or the MLC is rotated while the beam is on. Id. ¶¶ 6,
35.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
19
Figure 1 of Otto is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts the radiation emitting portion of a radiation treatment
device with a rotating MLC. Id. ¶ 17. Patient P is positioned to receive
radiation from radiotherapy device 10. Id. ¶ 25. Radiation exits through
multi-leaf collimator 14 within collimator 12 and impinges onto patient P.
Id. Multi-leaf collimator 14 has multiple movable leaves 15. Id. A control
system within radiotherapy device 10 moves leaves 15 and rotates multi-leaf
collimator 14. Id. ¶ 26.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
20
Figure 5 of Otto is reproduced below.

Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating method 100 for identifying a set of sub-
fields which will produce a desired overall radiation field on a treatment
planning computer system. Id. ¶ 44. In block 102,8 the desired overall
radiation field is inputted and a set of available optimization routines and
termination criteria is selected. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 51. The operator may also
specify values for certain parameters, including whether the radiation is to

8 Although the flowchart of Figure 5 includes separate blocks 102A and
102B, the specification otherwise refers to these blocks as a single block
102.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
21
be delivered statically or dynamically, the maximum range of rotation of the
collimator, and the maximum number of sub-fields. Id. ¶ 52. In block 104,
a set of configurations is determined, including leaf positions, collimator
angles, and sub-field contributions. Id. ¶ 53. All the parameters that are not
fixed may be varied according to the chosen optimization method. Id. In
block 106, discrepancies are evaluated between the calculated spatial
distribution of radiation resulting from the configurations determined in
block 104 and the desired spatial distribution of radiation. Id. ¶ 54. If one
or more termination criteria have not been attained in block 108, then
method 100 returns to block 104 for further optimization. Id. ¶ 56.
Petitioner contends Otto qualifies as prior art under, inter
alia, 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 12. Patent Owner does
not contest the prior art status of Otto.
We have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest
possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, we determine
that Otto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Otto’s filing
date of September 25, 2002, is before the earliest possible effective filing
date of the challenged claims, which is August 11, 2003. Ex. 1001,
code (60); Ex. 1003, code (22).

2. Chang
Chang is a U.S. patent directed to the optimized configuration of
multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaves for delivery of intensity-modulated
radiotherapy (IMRT). Ex. 1004, 1:7–10. Chang describes both “dynamic”
and “step-and-shoot” techniques: the dynamic MLC technique delivers an
intensity modulated photon field by moving the collimator leaves during
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
22
irradiation, while the step-and-shoot MLC technique delivers an intensity
modulated photon field via a sequence of static MLC ports. Id. at 2:38–45.
According to Chang, the orientation of the MLC leaves can have a
considerable influence on the quality and efficiency of the treatment. Id. at
9:52–55.
Chang describes two solutions or algorithms for searching for the
optimal collimator angle for the MLC segment-field. Id. at 10:32–45. The
first solution finds the collimator angle that conforms to the contour as
closely as possible. Id. at 10:34–36. The second solution searches for the
optimal collimator angle that better preserves the high-gradient regions of
the map section. Id. at 10:39–41. The final solution may be chosen based
on the influence of a solution on treatment delivery efficiency. Id. at 11:10–
12. An optimal collimator angle can also be selected for all segments of the
same intensity-modulated (IM) field to increase treatment delivery
efficiency. Id. at 11:7–9.
Petitioner contends Chang qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not contest the
prior art status of Chang.
We have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest
possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, we determine
that Chang qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Chang’s
filing date of March 28, 2003, is before the earliest possible effective filing
date of the challenged claims, which is August 11, 2003. Ex. 1001,
code (60); Ex. 1004, code (22).

IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
23
3. Webb
Webb is a portion of a book titled The Physics of Three-Dimensional
Radiation Therapy: Conformal Radiotherapy, Radiosurgery and Treatment
Planning. Ex. 1005, title page. Webb describes Brahme’s theory of
orientation as “the optimal angulation of the MLC leaves (at some particular
static orientation relative to the target volume).” Id. at 233. Brahme’s
theory posits that “the leaves should be aligned to minimize the opening of
the collimator from the fully closed position.” Id. at 234. According to
Webb, “[t]he problem reduces to finding the optimum way of arranging the
leaves so as to minimize the volume (represented by an area ‘seen’ in the
beam’s-eye-view) of normal tissue outside the target volume.” Id.
Webb also defines a “cost function” as a “[m]athematical function
parametrizing the effect of arranging beams in some particular way.” Id. at
344. Webb’s definition also states that “[t]he aim of optimization [is] to
minimize the cost function, possibly subject to constraints.” Id.
Petitioner contends Webb qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and cites the testimony of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. Pet. 16
(citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 48–54). Dr. Hall-Ellis is a professor with experience in
the field of library science. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 6–8. She testifies that Webb “was
publicly accessible as early as 1993, and in any event, at least a year before
the August 11, 2003 priority date” based on a record of Webb in the Library
of Congress. Id. ¶¶ 48–54. We further note that Webb bears a Library of
Congress stamp and a copyright notice dated 1993. See Ex. 1005, 5. Patent
Owner does not contest the prior art status of Webb.
Based on Dr. Hall-Ellis’s uncontested testimony, we determine that
Webb qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Webb’s
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
24
publication date in 1993 is more than one year before the earliest possible
effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is August 11, 2003.
Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1005, 5; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 48–54.

4. Mohan
Mohan is a paper “examin[ing] the potential impact of the frequency
and amplitude fluctuations (‘complexity’) in intensity distributions on
intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose distributions.” Ex. 1006,
1226. The paper uses a schematic example of IMRT for head and neck
carcinomas as delivered by a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) using
the “sweeping window” technique. Id. at 1226–27. According to Mohan,
“more complex intensity patterns take longer (i.e., require more MUs) to
deliver.” Id. at 1226.
Mohan states the following:
Coordinates (x,y) are in the “fanline” system, x being the
direction parallel to leaf motion. Ω(x,y) is that portion of the
total ‘beam-on time’ for which the point (x,y,z) is exposed to
the source of the primary (direct) radiation unobstructed by
dynamic leaves as the window formed by the leaves sweeps
across the field. The term “beam-on time” is used here not to
describe the actual time but to describe the number of MUs for
which the beam is on.
Id. at 1227 (brackets and parentheses omitted).
Mohan’s equation for calculating beam-on time is reproduced below.

This equation from Mohan above represents the beam-on time M l for a leaf
pair l. Id. at 1229 (equation (7)). According to Dr. Solberg, “ refers to
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
25
the starting position of the leaf pair,” “ refers to the terminal position of
the leaf pair,” and “ refers to the radiation intensity to be delivered at
each discrete point in the path of leaf travel.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. Dr. Solberg
further explains that “the left term in equation (7) is proportional to the leaf
travel distance for the leaf pair, ,” whereas “[t]he right term
captures the amount of ‘complexity’ or fluctuation in radiation intensity in
the direction of leaf travel.” Id. ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1006, 1229). “The total
beam-on time M is the maximum of the beam-on times of individual leaf
pairs,” as set forth below:
max
Ex. 1006, 1229 (equation (10)).
Mohan addresses the problem of transmission through and scattering
from the MLC the radiation dose, which it calls “indirect contributions,”
“indirect sources,” or “indirect radiation.” Id. at 1226–28, 1231–33, 1237.
One of the ways Mohan proposes to reduce indirect contributions “may be to
optimize the collimator angle for each beam in order to find orientations
which minimize fluctuations to dose at a point from indirect sources,” which
Mohan characterizes as “possible but not trivial.” Id. at 1237.
Petitioner contends Mohan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and again cites the testimony of Dr. Hall-Ellis. Pet. 17 (citing
Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 42–47). Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Mohan “was publicly
accessible as early as June 29, 2000, and in any event, more than one year
before the August 11, 2003 priority date” based on the stamp on the
June 2000 edition of Medical Physics (which included Mohan) in the
University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library and various records regarding
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
26
the journal Medical Physics. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 42–47, p. 84. Patent Owner does
not contest the prior art status of Mohan.
Based on Dr. Hall-Ellis’s uncontested testimony, we determine that
Mohan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Mohan’s
publication date of June 29, 2000, is more than one year before the earliest
possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is August 11,
2003. Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 42–47, p. 84.

5. Claim 1
a. Preamble
The preamble of claim 1 recites
[a] computer-implemented method of determining a collimator
angle of a multi-leaf collimator having an opening and a
plurality of multi-leaf collimator leaf pairs for closing portions
of the opening to form a radiation beam arrangement having a
plurality of radiation beam segments to apply radiation to a
tumor target, the method comprising the steps of[.]
Ex. 1001, 10:11–17. For the “multi-leaf collimator having . . . multi-leaf
collimator leaf pairs,” Petitioner cites Otto’s “multileaf collimator [with] two
opposing banks of adjacent blocking leaves.” Pet. 18–20 (citing, inter alia,
Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, Fig. 1). For the leaf pairs “closing portions of the opening to
form a radiation beam arrangement having a plurality of radiation beam
segments to apply radiation to a tumor target,” Petitioner cites Otto’s
teachings on moving leaves “in and out of the radiation beam to define
arbitrary field shapes.” Id. at 20–21 (quoting, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶ 4).
Petitioner further cites Otto’s teaching of delivering “a radiation field which
closely approximates an ideal radiation field” by “delivering several
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
27
appropriately configured sub-fields at different times.”9 Id. at 22 (quoting
Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Petitioner contends such “a sequence of distinct MLC leaf
shapes or configurations used to deliver the radiation” is commensurate with
the recited “plurality of radiation beam segments.” Id. at 22–23 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 61).
For the “computer-implemented method of determining a collimator
angle,” Petitioner cites Otto’s teachings on rotating the collimator. Pet. 23–
24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18, 25–26, 28, Figs. 2A, 2B). Petitioner further cites
Otto’s teachings on determining a set of configurations for delivering sub-
fields, which may include varying collimator angles according to a chosen
optimization method. Id. at 24–25 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶ 53, Fig. 5).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble of
claim 1. Neither party addresses whether the preamble is limiting. Because
Petitioner has shown that Otto teaches the preamble, we need not determine
whether the preamble is limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.

b. “calculating an initial radiation beam arrangement
according to a desired prescription”
Claim 1 further recites “calculating an initial radiation beam
arrangement according to a desired prescription.” Ex. 1001, 10:18–19.
Petitioner cites Otto’s optimization method in Figure 5 for teaching the
recited “calculating.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21, 44, Fig. 5).
Regarding the recited “desired prescription,” Petitioner cites Otto’s teaching

9 Petitioner relies specifically on Otto’s dynamic delivery method in which
“the leaves are moved while the beam is on.” Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1003
¶ 6); see also id. at 49 (citing same).
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
28
in block 102A of Figure 5 that a “desired overall radiation field” is an input
to the optimization method. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44, Fig. 5).
Petitioner acknowledges that Otto does not disclose the format of the desired
radiation field, so Petitioner relies on Chang’s teaching of generating a
“continuous, smooth intensity maps representing the ideal treatment for a
patient afflicted with a tumor” for this implementation detail. Id. at 28–31
(quoting Ex. 1004, 7:66–8:5) (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1002 ¶ 72) (emphasis
omitted). Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood that, as part of Otto’s optimization method performed in
block 104 of Figure 5, an “initial radiation beam arrangement” would be
calculated based on the desired radiation field (and further optimized
thereafter). Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 70; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53, Fig. 5).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “calculating
an initial radiation beam arrangement” limitation. We are persuaded that
Otto’s Figure 5 method teaches using a desired prescription (block 102A) to
calculate an initial beam arrangement, which is optimized thereafter
(block 104). See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21, 44, 53, Fig. 5. Chang
also teaches a smooth intensity map for specifying the desired prescription.
See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:66–8:5. Based on Petitioner’s analysis, we are
persuaded that Otto and Chang teach “calculating an initial radiation beam
arrangement according to a desired prescription,” as recited in claim 1.

c. “changing the radiation beam arrangement” limitation
Claim 1 further recites
changing the radiation beam arrangement by incorporating a
first cost function to determine the collimator angle of the
multi-leaf collimator, the first cost function including both a
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
29
second cost function to enhance delivery efficiency by reducing
a number of radiation beam segments and reducing a number of
radiation beam monitor units required for delivery of the
desired prescription and a third cost function to enhance
conformity of the radiation beam arrangement to a target shape.
Ex. 1001, 10:20–29. Regarding “changing the radiation beam arrangement
. . . to determine the collimator angle of the multi-leaf collimator,” Petitioner
cites Otto’s generation of “MLC configurations for a desired radiation field
by iteratively varying certain parameters, including collimator angle,
according to a chosen optimization method.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 7610; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53, Fig. 5). Petitioner notes that Otto does not teach any
particular criteria for evaluating when an optimal collimator angle has been
achieved. Id. at 33–34. As such, Petitioner cites Chang’s “specific
technique in which the final optimal solution for collimator angle is chosen
to fulfill the dual objectives of (1) ‘find[ing] the collimator angle that
conforms to the contour as closely as possible’ . . . while (2) factoring in ‘the
influence of such solution . . . on treatment delivery efficiency.’” Id. at 34
(citing Ex. 1004, 10:34–36, 11:10–12, Figs. 8A, 8B) (alteration in original)
(emphases omitted). Petitioner also cites Chang’s teaching of choosing a
single, optimal collimator angle to increase delivery efficiency. Id. (citing
Ex. 1004, 11:10–12).
Claim 1 recites that the “first cost function” includes the “second cost
function” and the “third cost function.” See Ex. 1001, 10:20–29. Petitioner
analyzes the three recited cost functions together. See Pet. 36–48. For
“enhanc[ing] conformity of the radiation beam arrangement to a target

10 Petitioner mistakenly cites to paragraph 70, but the context makes clear
Petitioner intended to cite to paragraph 76.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
30
shape,” Petitioner cites Webb’s discussion of Brahme’s theory and its aim to
“minimize the volume (represented by an area ‘seen’ in the beam’s-eye-
view) of normal tissue outside the target volume.” Id. at 38 (quoting
Ex. 1002 ¶ 85; Ex. 1005, 233–34). Petitioner also cites the same two
objectives from Chang discussed directly above related to (1) conforming to
the intensity map contour and (2) increasing efficiency. Id. at 36 (citing
Ex. 1004, 10:34–36, 11:10–12, Figs. 8A, 8B); see also id. at 39–40 (citing
same). Petitioner concedes “Chang does not detail . . . the precise
computational technique that would be used to achieve” these objectives, but
contends that “it would have been natural and obvious to use a ‘cost
function’ as claimed.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–33, 49, 82)
(emphasis by Petitioner). Petitioner further cites Webb’s teachings for the
proposition that “a cost function allows the computer running an
optimization process to identify when it has arrived at the optimal solution
for a beam arrangement.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 83; Ex. 1005,
344).
In light of these teachings, Petitioner contends
[i]t would . . . have been obvious that to achieve Chang’s dual
objectives in the context of an iterative optimization process as
disclosed in Otto, a cost function would be used that included
not just a mathematical function that quantified conformity, but
also a function that quantified delivery efficiency. And for this,
a person of ordinary skill would have looked to Mohan.
Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 5; Ex. 1005, 234) (footnote and internal
citations omitted). As such, Petitioner cites Mohan’s “mathematical
function for the minimum number of MUs, also referred to as ‘beam-on
time,’ required to deliver a given radiation field from a particular direction
of leaf travel.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1006, 1227–29, equations 7, 10).
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
31
Petitioner further cites Mohan’s teaching of “optimiz[ing] the collimator
angle for each beam in order to find orientations which minimize
fluctuations.” Id. at 43 (quoting Ex. 1006, 1237). According to Petitioner,
an ordinarily skilled artisan considering this teaching and Mohan’s
mathematical function would have been motivated “to implement Mohan’s
equations as part of a cost function.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91, 107).
Petitioner characterizes the combined system of Otto, Chang, Webb,
and Mohan as follows:
Under the combination of Otto and Chang with Webb and
Mohan . . . , the overall “cost function” used to achieve
Chang’s dual objectives in the context of Otto’s optimization
would include not only (1) a mathematical function that
minimized the “area ‘seen’ in the beam’s-eye-view” of normal
tissue outside the target volume, i.e., “a [] cost function to
enhance conformity of the radiation beam arrangement to a
target shape,” but also (2) a function that minimized the
number of MUs (“beam-on time”) required to deliver a given
radiation field from a particular orientation of leaf travel, i.e., “a
second cost function to enhance delivery efficiency by
reducing a number of radiation beam segments and
reducing a number of radiation beam monitor units
required for delivery of the desired prescription.”
Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93; Ex. 1005, 234; Ex. 1006, 1229, 1237)
(internal citations omitted) (emphasis by Petitioner). As such, Petitioner
maps the recited “second cost function” to Mohan’s equation (10), which
incorporates equation (7), and Petitioner maps the recited “third cost
function” to Brahme’s theory, which is described in Webb. Id. Petitioner
concedes that Mohan does not discuss “radiation beam segments,” but
Petitioner notes “there exists a general correlation between the number of
MUs and the number of segments – in Mohan’s parlance, ‘windows formed
by the leaves’ – used to deliver a treatment plan.” Id. at 45–46 (citing
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
32
Ex. 1002 ¶ 94; Ex. 1006, 1232) (internal citation omitted). Petitioner
contends the relationship between MUs and segments is confirmed by the
three different intensity patterns shown in Figure 3 of Mohan. Id.
According to Petitioner, Figure 3 shows that window widths decrease and
exhibit greater variation as the number of MUs increase, which “reflect[s] an
increased number of MLC configurations implemented as the leaf pair
travels from its starting to end points.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94). Thus,
Petitioner contends Mohan’s mathematical function for MUs, when used in a
cost function, would result in a reduced number of radiation beam segments.
Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94).
As a further evidence of the relationship between MUs and segments,
Petitioner notes that claim 5 of the ’490 patent (not challenged here)
specifies the recited second cost function of claim 1 can take the form of
“max l θ ,” which “outputs a single value ‘describing the maximum
effective length’” of a leaf pair. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:33–36).
According to Petitioner, the fact that this single value fulfills the limitation
“reducing a number of radiation beam segments and reducing a number of
radiation beam monitor units” in claim 1 “confirms that the number of beam
segments is directly correlated with the number of MUs.” Id. at 47;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 95. Furthermore, Petitioner notes that “[t]he ’490 [patent]
specification . . . discloses no separate mathematical function or algorithm
for reducing beam segments as distinguished from reducing MUs.” Pet. 47
(citing Ex. 1001, 4:35–53).
We are persuaded that Otto’s discussion with respect to block 104 of
Figure 5 teaches “changing the radiation beam arrangement . . . to determine
the collimator angle of the multi-leaf collimator.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 53,
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
33
Fig. 5 (“Vary . . . collimator angles . . . using the chosen optimization
method.”). Webb teaches the use of an overall cost function for
optimization, i.e., “a first cost function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 344 (stating
that a cost function is a “[m]athematical function parametrizing the effect of
arranging beams in some particular way” and that “[t]he aim of optimization
would be to minimize the cost function”). Chang teaches the objectives of
the “third cost function” and the “second cost function,” respectively:
(1) “find[ing] the collimator angle that conforms to the contour as closely as
possible” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 10:34–36), while (2) factoring in “the
influence of such solution . . . on treatment delivery efficiency” (see, e.g., id.
at 11:10–12). Webb also teaches a “third cost function to enhance
conformity” based on Brahme’s theory. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 234. Finally,
Mohan’s equation (10), which incorporates equation (7), teaches the recited
“second cost function to enhance delivery efficiency.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005,
1229, 1237. In particular, Mohan’s equation (10) is described as a cost
function to reduce monitor units (or “beam-on time”) (see, e.g., id. at 1227,
1229), and we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
known of a correlation between reduced monitor units and reduced radiation
beam segments. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–95; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 66–71. We
further discuss Petitioner’s analysis for the “changing the radiation beam
arrangement” limitation in the context of Patent Owner’s arguments below.

(1) Patent Owner’s Arguments Based on Otto
Patent Owner disputes that Otto teaches an iterative optimization
algorithm to optimize collimator angle. PO Resp. 18–24. According to
Patent Owner, Otto “explicitly teaches that each segment has a pre-
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
34
determined collimator angle.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11; Ex. 2035
¶ 109); see also id. at 19 (discussing embodiments of Otto where collimator
angles are “pre-determined and fixed” and “spaced apart equally over a
suitable angular range”), 21 (citing testimony from Dr. Solberg about “the
collimator angle for each segment [being] fixed at an angle manually
selected by the user’); PO Sur-reply 4 (same argument). Patent Owner
further disputes that Otto’s Figure 5 embodiment teaches the use of an
optimization algorithm for collimator angle. PO Resp. 19–24. In particular,
Patent Owner notes that Otto does not teach specific criteria to determine
when optimization has been achieved. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 77).
Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 5–6) that the plain
language shown within Otto’s Figure 5 contradicts Patent Owner’s
arguments. Specifically, block 102B of Figure 5 states “[s]elect fixed
treatment parameters (e.g. dynamic or static mode, range of rotation),”
whereas block 104 states “[v]ary leaf positions, collimator angles and
individual sub-field contributions using the chosen optimization method.”
Ex. 1003, Fig. 5. Otto further explains: “Block 104 determines a set of
configurations for delivering a number of sub-fields. Each configuration
specifies leaf positions, collimator angles and sub-field contributions. All
the parameters that are not fixed may be varied according to the chosen
optimization method.” Id. ¶ 53. Thus, Otto teaches that the collimator angle
may be varied as part of a chosen optimization method. These teachings
also support Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would
have understood and found it obvious that as part of the optimization step
shown in block 104, the radiation beam arrangement would be ‘chang[ed]’
by varying its parameters until an optimal collimator angle is determined.”
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
35
Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76) (emphasis omitted). Furthermore, to the
extent Otto does not teach particular optimization criteria (see PO Resp. 19–
20), Petitioner relies on Chang, not Otto, for teaching such criteria. See
Pet. 33–34. Thus, we find Petitioner’s argument to be persuasive.
Patent Owner also refers to a different reference, “Otto Paper,” in an
attempt to draw distinctions with the Otto reference asserted here. PO
Resp. 24–26 (citing Ex. 2033). Based on Otto Paper, Patent Owner contends
an ordinarily skilled artisan “would not have concluded that Otto taught or
suggested the use of an iterative algorithm to optimize collimator angle.” Id.
at 26 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 134). We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 7),
however, that Otto Paper does not undermine or change the cited portions of
Otto on which Petitioner relies. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference must be considered for
everything it teaches by way of technology”).
Patent Owner additionally argues that Otto does not disclose dynamic
delivery using a single collimator angle. See PO Resp. 27–30; PO
Sur-reply 5–6. Specifically, Patent Owner contends an ordinarily skilled
artisan “would not have read paragraph [0006] of Otto as teaching or
suggesting a dynamic system in which leaves moved while the beam is on”
because this paragraph pertains to general background, not the invention of
Otto. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 151–155). Rather, Patent Owner
points to an embodiment of Otto where radiation is delivered “dynamically
(with the collimator rotating while radiation is being delivered).” Id. at 29;
PO Sur-reply 5 (both quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Thus, Patent Owner concludes
that it would have been “impossible to practice Otto’s invention involving
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
36
multiple collimator angles without rotating the collimator.” Id. at 30 (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶ 156).
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner is entitled
to rely on Otto “for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole,” and not just “in isolation.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Nor are the teachings from Otto limited to “the
particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” See EWP,
755 F.2d at 907. Paragraph 6 of Otto states that “[i]n dynamic [delivery]
methods[,] the leaves are moved while the beam is on.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Otto
also mentions that “[a]ny desired overall radiation field can be made by
applying any of many possible combinations of sub-fields.” Id. ¶ 43. As
such, Petitioner is entitled to rely on Otto for teaching dynamic delivery
where just the leaves of a collimator move.11 See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
The fact that Otto may additionally describe embodiments with a rotating
collimator does not limit how Petitioner (and an ordinarily skilled artisan)
may rely on Otto. See EWP, 755 F.2d at 907. This is supported by
Mr. Chase’s testimony that “Otto adds the possibility of rotating the MLC in
addition to moving the leaves during treatment.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 68 (emphasis
added). Moreover, Dr. Solberg mentions a suggestion in Otto of

11 Indeed, Petitioner’s combination relies only on dynamic movement of the
leaves. See Pet. 18–23 (referring to Otto’s moving leaves), 50–51 (referring
to Mohan regarding the “orientation of leaf travel” and “the collimator
leaves . . . travel[ing] in a direction with a short leaf travel distance”).
Correspondingly, Petitioner cites Mohan’s teachings in conjunction with one
particular collimator angle being evaluated. See id. at 50–51. Petitioner
does not rely on Otto’s teachings of a collimator that rotates during radiation
delivery.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
37
computational advantage (in addition to the delivery efficiency
advantage taught by Chang) that would be gained by using a
single optimized collimator angle to deliver an entire beam: “It
is not trivial to identify a combination of sub-fields which will
produce a desired overall radiation field when collimator 14 is
permitted to rotate between sub-fields.”
Ex. 1002 ¶ 108 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 39) (emphasis by Dr. Solberg). This
also supports Petitioner’s reliance on Otto’s teaching of dynamic movement
of the leaves without collimator rotation.
Patent Owner makes other arguments related to Otto that do not
address the particular combination asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 16–
18 (arguments regarding Otto’s objective being dosimetric fit, though
Petitioner relies on Chang for teaching the objective of “enhanc[ing]
delivery efficiency”), 26–27 (arguments regarding the application of Otto’s
algorithm to the combination, though Petitioner relies on Chang’s
algorithm). These arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s persuasive
showing.

(2) Patent Owner’s Arguments Based on Chang
Patent Owner contends “Chang’s primary and secondary solutions to
select a collimator rotation angle are both directed to maximizing dosimetric
fitness.” PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 175); see also PO Sur-reply 6
(same argument). As such, Patent Owner contends an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not have read Chang as “disclosing or suggesting a collimator
angle optimization cost function or algorithm to determine collimator angle
based on any measurement of deliver efficiency, much less by decreasing
the number of segments and MU[s].” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 190);
see also PO Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 182–183) (same argument). Yet
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
38
Chang expressly states that “[a]n optimal collimator angle can also be
selected for all segments of the same IM field to increase treatment delivery
efficiency” and that “the final solution or solutions is chosen based [on] the
influence of such solution or solutions on treatment delivery efficiency.”
Ex. 1004, 11:7–12. Thus, Chang does not support Patent Owner’s
suggestion that Chang’s teachings are limited to improving conformity or
that Chang does not teach optimization based on efficiency considerations.
Moreover, we agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 11–12) that Chang teaches
initially identifying collimator angles based on conformity, and then
evaluating the angles on the basis of efficiency, which results in a final
optimized angle that accounts for both conformity and efficiency. See
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46, 77–80; Ex. 1004, 10:34–36, 10:65–11:12; see also Pet. 16,
34–35 (citing same).
To the extent that Patent Owner argues that Chang does not disclose
an iterative algorithm to reduce segments and MUs (see PO Resp. 37–40),
Petitioner relies on Mohan for teaching this limitation. See Pet. 40–48. As
such, these arguments do not undermine the combination proposed by
Petitioner.

(3) Patent Owner’s Arguments Based on Mohan
Patent Owner disputes that Mohan teaches “enhanc[ing] delivery
efficiency by reducing a number of radiation beam segments and reducing a
number of radiation beam monitor units required.” See PO Resp. 47–48. In
particular, Patent Owner takes issue with Mohan’s statement that it may be
possible to reduce indirect radiation contributions by “optimiz[ing] the
collimator angle for each beam in order to find orientations which minimize
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
39
fluctuations,” which Mohan states is “possible but not trivial.” Ex. 1006,
1237. Patent Owner characterizes Mohan’s statement as something the
author had not done, and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
interpreted this as guidance on how to accomplish the optimization of a
collimator angle with respect to any parameter. PO Resp. 48 (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 236–237).
In reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s argument ignores
Mohan’s express teaching of “optimiz[ing] the collimator angle for each
beam in order to find orientations which minimize fluctuations.” Pet.
Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1006, 1237). According to Petitioner, “Mohan makes
clear that the (synonymous) concepts of ‘complexity’ and ‘fluctuation’ is
[sic] quantified by equation (7), which Petitioner cited to supply the delivery
efficiency portion of the ‘cost function’ as claimed.” Id. at 17 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–91, 100–101). Petitioner also argues that it need not show
absolute predictability in order to establish a reasonable expectation of
success in making its proposed combination. Id. at 14–16 (citing, inter alia,
Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2017)).
We agree with Petitioner. Mohan expressly teaches that it is possible
to optimize the collimator angle for each beam in order to find orientations
that minimize fluctuations. Ex. 1006, 1237. Mohan also provides an
equation (see id. at 1229, equation (7)) that quantifies “the amount of
‘complexity’ or fluctuation in radiation intensity in the direction of leaf
travel.” Pet. 42–43; see also Ex. 1006, 1229 (“the contribution of the second
term [of equation (7)] depends upon the complexity of the opening density
profile”). We agree with Petitioner that, in light of these teachings, an
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
40
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Mohan’s
equations as part of a cost function. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91, 107).
Patent Owner also disputes that Mohan teaches “how [to] enhance
delivery efficiency by reducing both the number of segments required and
the number of MUs required.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 255). In
particular, Patent Owner questions Dr. Solberg’s testimony about “a general
correlation between the number of MUs and the number of segments”
(Ex. 1002 ¶ 94) as being unsupported and based merely on a “loose
correlation.” PO Resp. 52–54 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2032, 163:22–18,
165:6–19). Patent Owner also cites two references in support of its
contention that “the lack of a direct correlation between MU[s] and
treatment time was well known in the art to a POSA.” Id. at 54–55 (citing
Ex. 2037 (“Potter”), 275, 282; Ex. 2034 (“Herman”), 7); see also Ex. 2035
¶ 264 (citing same).
In reply, Petitioner argues that it only needs to prove that its proposed
combination is “‘reasonably capable’ of operating so as to reduce segments
as claimed, even if it would not necessarily reduce segments in all instances
of its operation.” Pet. Reply 21 (quoting ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm
Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Petitioner reiterates the
testimony of Dr. Solberg and cites additional testimony from Dr. Chang
about a “general correlation” between the number of MUs and the number of
segments. Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 66–71).
As noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 21), Mr. Chase apparently
concedes that “higher complexity is associated with higher MUs” and that
Mohan’s cost function would work to reduce complexity and reduce the
number of MUs. Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 214, 246–247. Thus, the only remaining
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
41
question is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known of a
correlation between Mohan’s teaching of reducing the number of MUs and
the recited “reducing the number of radiation beam segments” of claim 1.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known about this general correlation based on Mohan’s
teachings. In particular, Figure 3 of Mohan shows that as the number of
MUs increases, “corresponding window widths not only decreased but
exhibited greater variation – reflecting an increased number of MLC
configurations implemented as the leaf pair travels from its starting to end
points.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 94; Ex. 1006, 1232. This supports Petitioner’s
contentions because Mohan teaches that “radiation is delivered through a
sequence of windows formed by the leaves” (Ex. 1006, 1226), which
Petitioner likens to segments. See Pet. 45.
Nor do we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood Mohan’s teachings—particularly with
regard to equation (7)—to be “specific to the physics of a dynamic sliding
windows system” such that they would not be “applicable to segment based
systems (either dynamic or static), and would not be material to the
calculation of MUs, segment count, or treatment time of segment-based
systems.” PO Resp. 50–51 (Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 250–251). Although Patent Owner
contends that Mohan does not address how to extend Mohan’s equation (7)
to “a non-sliding dynamic system” (see id. at 51), Mohan discusses both
dynamic and static systems. See Ex. 1006, 1226. Record evidence also
establishes that the sliding window technique to which Mohan’s equation (7)
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
42
corresponds is equally applicable to both dynamic and static delivery.12
Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 76–79; Ex. 1025, 72:19–73:7; Ex. 2032, 16:20–21, 17:6–20.
For example, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that
“segments” as applied to step-and-shoot delivery correspond to “control
points” in the context of dynamic sliding window delivery. Ex. 1023 ¶ 81 &
n.11; Ex. 2032, 112:22–113:22; Ex. 2035 ¶ 58. With this in mind, we do not
agree that differences between dynamic and static delivery undermine
Petitioner’s contentions regarding “segments” based on Mohan, i.e., that the
use of Mohan’s cost function would result in reduced MUs and reduced
segments (“windows formed by the leaves”). See Pet. 45–46 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 94; Ex. 1006, 1226, 1232). Dr. Chang also provides detailed
testimony on how Mohan’s equation would reduce MUs and segments for
both dynamic and static sliding window delivery, which we credit. See
Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 80–97.
We also agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 21) that Petitioner need not
establish perfect correlation between Mohan’s teaching of reduced MUs and
the resulting reduced segments. Rather, Petitioner need only show that its
proposed combination “is reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the
claim limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limitations in all modes
of operation.” ParkerVision, 903 F.3d at 1361. As discussed above,
Petitioner has established as much via its citations to Mohan. We
additionally note that exemplary implementations of the cost function
disclosed in the ’490 patent sometimes resulted in decreased segments but
increased MUs. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 8 (showing, for IMFAST software, a

12 We further discuss Patent Owner’s arguments regarding static versus
dynamic delivery below. See infra § II.E.5.e.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
43
93% ratio for segments but a 110% ratio for MUs), Fig. 9 (showing, for the
STANDARD algorithm, a 92% ratio for segments but a 101% ratio for
MUs); see also Ex. 1023 ¶ 73 (Dr. Chang’s testimony regarding the same).
As such, Patent Owner is wrong to suggest that Petitioner must show more
than is disclosed in the ’490 patent itself, which reflects less-than-perfect
correlation between reduced segments and reduced MUs.
Furthermore, as noted by Petitioner (Pet. 46–47), the only efficiency
cost function disclosed in the ’490 patent (max l θ ) results in a single
value (the “value of the maximum effective length”). Ex. 1001, 6:35–44,
11:33–36 (claim 5). By virtue of claim 5 depending from claim 1, the
’490 patent links this function with both reducing a number of segments and
reducing a number of monitor units. Id. at 11:33 (claim 5 reciting that
“max l θ is the second cost function”). The single-value “second cost
function” of the ’490 patent thus confirms a direct correlation between
reduced segments and reduced monitor units. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 95.
We additionally have considered Patent Owner’s arguments related to
certain references cited by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 54–55), Potter and
Herman, in light of the testimony from Dr. Chang. See Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 68–70.
We are persuaded by Dr. Chang’s testimony that (1) Potter, for which she is
a co-author, “does not demonstrate the absence of a general correlation
between the number of MUs and segments” based on a very limited sample
size (id. ¶ 68); and (2) Herman “refer[s] to a lack of an observed relation
between MUs and treatment time, and not MUs and segment count” (id.
¶ 69). Thus, these references do not undermine Petitioner’s contentions
relating to Mohan.

IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
44
d. Conclusion Regarding Preamble and Claim Limitations
On the entire trial record, Petitioner has established that the
combination of Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan teaches all limitations of
claim 1.

e. Reasons for the Combination
Petitioner contends “[a] person of ordinary skill, looking to implement
or enhance the MLC techniques of Otto, would have naturally consulted
Chang” because “Chang provides an implementation detail missing from
Otto –– the format in which the desired radiation field can be provided.”
Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 72). In particular, Petitioner refers to Chang’s
“‘smooth’ intensity map[, which] has a higher spatial resolution than
‘discrete’ maps used by alternative techniques, and therefore provides a
superior representation of the desired treatment.” Id. at 30–31 (citing
Ex. 1004, 1:43–57, 8:8–15, 8:59–67). In this way, Otto’s method of
determining optimized parameters would have been extended such that “the
desired prescription is provided in the form of a high resolution intensity
map as disclosed in Chang.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–74; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 44–56, Fig. 5; Ex. 1004, 7:66–8:5, Fig. 4).
Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have combined Chang, Webb, and Mohan with Otto such that Otto’s method
of determining the optimized parameters included a cost function to
determine the optimized collimator angle. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 91;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–56, Fig. 5; Ex. 1004, 10:34–36, 11:10–12; Ex. 1005, 234;
Ex. 1006, 1229). In particular, Petitioner contends Chang has “dual
objectives to ‘find[] the collimator angle that conforms to the contour as
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
45
closely as possible,’ while also factoring in ‘the influence of such solution
. . . on treatment delivery efficiency.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 10:34–35,
11:10–12). Petitioner also cites Webb’s disclosure about Brahme’s theory
and its “mathematical function that minimizes the ‘area “seen” in the
beam’s-eye-view’ of normal tissue outside the target volume . . . to enhance
conformity of the beam arrangement to a target shape.” Id. at 49 (quoting
Ex. 1005, 234). Petitioner further cites Mohan for teaching “a mathematical
function that minimizes the number of MUs (‘beam-on time’) required to
deliver a desired radiation field . . . to enhance delivery efficiency by
reducing a number of beam segments and MUs.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97;
Ex. 1006, 1229, 1237).
Petitioner presents Dr. Solberg’s description of an “exemplary
implementation of how the proposed combination of Otto, Chang, Webb,
and Mohan would work in practice.” Pet. 49–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99–102).
In this example, “Otto would generate MLC configurations for a desired
radiation field for ‘dynamic’ delivery by iteratively varying certain
parameters, including collimator angle.” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6, 53, Fig. 5). Furthermore, “the desired radiation field would
be input into Otto in the form of a high resolution, ‘smooth’ intensity map as
taught by Chang.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:66–8:5, Fig. 4).
Continuing Petitioner’s example, a cost function would be calculated
for each collimator angle evaluated as part of Otto’s optimization process.
Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 100; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). According to Petitioner, the
cost function would combine a calculation related to Brahme’s theory, as
taught by Webb, with “the value for minimum MUs required to deliver the
desired radiation in the orientation of leaf travel (corresponding to the
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
46
collimator angle being evaluated),” as taught by Mohan. Id. at 50–51 (citing
Ex. 1005, 234; Ex. 1006, 1229 (equations (7), (10)), 1237). Petitioner
contends “[t]he optimal collimator angle is achieved when the value of the
overall cost function is at a minimum.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101;
Ex. 1005, 344). Petitioner characterizes this minimum value as
the collimator angle that draws the appropriate balance between
allowing the collimator leaves to conform as closely as possible
to the contour of the target (as represented by the contour of
[Chang’s] “smooth” intensity map), and allowing the collimator
leaves to travel in a direction with a short leaf travel distance
and minimized fluctuations in intensity, and thereby deliver the
desired radiation with improved efficiency.
Id. (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 8B; Ex. 1005, 234; Ex. 1006, 1229, 1231, 1237)
(internal citations omitted). Petitioner additionally points to Chang’s
teaching that “[a] single optimized collimator angle could accordingly be
used for the entire sequence of MLC configurations to deliver the desired
field (i.e., from a particular gantry angle) to further enhance delivery
efficiency.” Id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 102; Ex. 1004, 11:7–12).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have had reasons to combine Chang, Webb, and Mohan with
Otto in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s reasons are rooted in
the references themselves: (1) Chang touts that its “smooth” intensity map
provides a better representation of the desired treatment than “discrete”
intensity maps (Ex. 1004, 1:43–57, 8:8–15), a desirable improvement for
Otto’s method, which does not provide this implementation detail (i.e., the
format in which the desired radiation field is provided); (2) Chang also
teaches dual optimization objectives of enhancing conformity and enhancing
delivery efficiency (id. at 10:32–11:12), which provides a missing detail
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
47
from Otto regarding criteria for evaluating optimal collimator angles;
(3) Webb teaches cost functions (Ex. 1005, 344), which provides a
computational technique that would be used to achieve Chang’s dual
objectives; (4) Webb also teaches Brahme’s theory (id. at 233–35), which
provides a specific mathematical technique to determine a collimator angle
that best achieves the objective of enhancing conformity to a radiation
target; and (5) Mohan teaches a mathematical function for minimizing the
number of MUs (Ex. 1006, 1227–29, 1237), which quantifies delivery
efficiency.
We also credit Dr. Solberg’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–74,
97–108) and Dr. Chang’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 41–46, 59–64)
regarding the rationale for Petitioner’s combination. To the extent
Mr. Chase’s testimony conflicts with Dr. Solberg’s and Dr. Chang’s
testimony regarding this rationale, we find Dr. Solberg’s and Dr. Chang’s
testimony more persuasive and consistent with the record (as discussed in
greater detail below). In particular, Mr. Chase’s testimony is flawed because
it is based on the perspective of a clinician using commercially available
systems rather than a person having two years’ experience in computer
programming associated with treatment plan optimization, among other
things. See supra § II.D. As such, Mr. Chase’s testimony does not “take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). We also are mindful of the high level of ordinary skill in the art (see
supra § II.B), which may favor a determination of obviousness. See
Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
48
nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). We
further discuss Petitioner’s rationale for the combination in the context of
Patent Owner’s arguments below.
Patent Owner characterizes Chang as being directed to a step-and-
shoot delivery system, and not dynamic delivery as in Petitioner’s proposed
combination. PO Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:5–3:16), 59–60 (citing
Ex. 2035 ¶ 297). Patent Owner contends that, although “Chang does not
affirmatively say that it would be impossible to use [the disclosed] invention
with a delivery system other than step-and-shoot,” Chang “certainly does not
disclose or suggest how to do so, or even the desirability of trying.” Id. at 41
(citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 201). As such, Patent Owner contends an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood “Chang’s disclosed invention to be
specific to step-and-shoot delivery.” Id. Patent Owner additionally argues
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined Otto’s dynamic
mode with “Chang’s static step-and-shoot delivery method.” Id. at 59–60
(citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 297–300). Rather, Patent Owner argues an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined “the two innovations on the step-and-
shoot delivery system common to both.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 298).
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner’s
citations to Chang are not limited to or peculiar to step-and-shoot delivery.
Petitioner cites Chang for its smooth intensity map (see Pet. 28–29) and its
dual objectives of finding a collimator angle that best conforms to a
treatment map and increasing efficiency (see id. at 33–36). Petitioner
contends Chang’s high resolution intensity map would have been used as an
input to Otto’s optimization process. See id. at 29–30. Petitioner further
contends Chang’s dual objectives would have been the optimization criteria
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
49
for Otto’s process. See id. at 39–40. Thus, we do not agree that Chang’s
step-and-shoot teachings, which the Petition does not rely upon, undermine
Petitioner’s combination.
In addition, we do not agree that Chang’s teachings are limited
necessarily to step-and-shoot delivery. Even if Patent Owner were correct
that Chang’s disclosed invention is implemented with step-and-shoot
delivery, Patent Owner admits that Chang discusses dynamic delivery. See
PO Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:14–18, 2:38–55).
We also agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 19) that dynamic and static
step-and-shoot delivery each can involve similar movements of the
collimator leaves. See Ex. 1025, 72:9–73:7 (Mr. Chase testifying that, in
step-and-shoot delivery, collimator leaves can move “side to side and make
a series of static segments and have the beams turn off between the
segments”); Ex. 2032, 94:4–95:14 (Dr. Solberg testifying sliding window
and step-and-shoot delivery are “not exclusive of one another” and that
“[s]ome linear accelerators can do dynamic, some can only do step-and-
shoot, some can do both”); see also Ex. 1029,13 771 (2003 Williams paper
explaining “there are many similarities between segmented and dynamic
MLC treatments” and that “[d]ynamic delivery can be seen as an extension
of segmented delivery to the limit where the segments are so small that their
delivery without interruption becomes possible”); Ex. 2009, R373 (2006
Bortfeld paper explaining that “[i]f many segments are used the distinction

13 Patent Owner notes that the 2003 Williams paper at Exhibit 1029 is not
prior art to the ’490 patent because it was published three months after the
earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. PO
Sur-reply 9 & n.2. Nevertheless, we find the 2003 Williams paper to be
probative of the state of the art around the time of the ’490 patent.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
50
between dynamic and step-and-shoot delivery becomes somewhat blurry”).
Thus, even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that Chang’s teachings
are limited to step-and-shoot delivery, the evidence of record does not
support that Patent Owner’s purported distinction would make a difference
to Petitioner’s combination.
Patent Owner also argues that Mohan’s equations “are specific to the
physics of a dynamic sliding windows system, and are not applicable to
segment based systems (either dynamic or static), and would not be material
to the calculation of MUs, segment count, or treatment time of segment-
based systems.” Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 250–251). Patent Owner
also criticizes Petitioner for relying on conclusory statements and for failing
to detail how Mohan’s equations would have been modified for segment
based systems, such as step-and-shoot. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 252).
Patent Owner also disputes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
expected success in combining Mohan’s equations pertaining to
unidirectional collimator leaves with Otto’s and Chang’s systems in which
the leaves move bidirectionally. Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1006, 1228–29;
Ex. 2035 ¶ 304); see also PO Sur-reply 8 (same argument).
As discussed above, dynamic and step-and-shoot delivery both
involve similar movements of the collimator leaves. See Ex. 1025, 72:9–
73:7. Moreover, Petitioner cites testimony from both sides in its Reply (Pet.
Reply 19) supporting Petitioner’s contention that “the cited sliding or
sweeping window technique from Mohan, in which the leaves move
unidirectionally from one side to another, was commonly implemented with
both dynamic and static delivery.” Ex. 2032, 16:8–17:20; Ex. 1025, 72:19–
73:7; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 76–78 (citing Exs. 1028, 1029, 2009, 2037). Given the
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
51
common nature of both dynamic and static delivery in which the leaves
move in the same direction, we do not agree that the various technological
differences highlighted by Patent Owner would have meaningfully affected
Petitioner’s proposed combination. Moreover, as stated above, we credit
Dr. Chang’s testimony on how Mohan’s equation would reduce MUs and
segments for both dynamic and static sliding window delivery “without
modification.” See Pet. Reply 22; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 80–97.
Patent Owner disputes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
had a motivation to combine Otto, Chang, and Mohan because Otto and
Chang “were seeking solutions to improve dosimetric fit.” PO Resp. 57. As
such, Patent Owner argues that Otto and Chang are “not about improving
delivery efficiency, nor were they about reducing the number of segments
required.” Id. at 57 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 289–290). Rather, Patent Owner
argues that the “subject and object” of Otto, Chang, and Mohan is dosimetric
fitness. Id. at 58–59. Patent Owner further contends that the fact that Otto
and Chang generally relate to improving dosimetric fitness would not have
motivated an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine these references. Id.
(citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 292). As discussed above, however, Chang also discusses
delivery efficiency. See Ex. 1004, 11:7–12. We also find above that Mohan
teaches how to reduce the number of segments and monitor units required,
which results in efficiency improvements. See supra § II.E.5.c.(3). And,
even if the “goal” of these references were to achieve dosimetric fitness, we
do not agree that a reference’s “goal” prevents its application for other
aspects it teaches by way of technology. See EWP, 755 F.2d at 907. Thus,
we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
52
Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s proposed combination is
“the direct result of impermissible hindsight.” PO Resp. 61–62. Patent
Owner focuses on the following testimony from Dr. Solberg regarding his
drafting process for his declaration: “It starts at the –– well, I’m aided in
understanding what claims to assess.” Id. at 61 (quoting Ex. 2032, 63:20–
64:12); see also PO Sur-reply 10–11. In light of this comment, Patent
Owner argues that “Dr. Solberg’s method . . . started with the claims at
issue,” which is “classic hindsight.” PO Resp. 61; see also id. at 62
(argument regarding improper use of the claims as a roadmap); PO
Sur-reply 11 (same argument). Yet we do not read Dr. Solberg’s isolated
statement about “understanding what claims to assess” as an indication that
he impermissibly used the challenged claims as a roadmap. It does not
strike us as unusual that a declarant would need to understand the claims at
issue—and the particular inventions they recite—when he is asked to opine
about the obviousness of those very claims. Moreover, as discussed above,
we find Petitioner’s rationale for the combination to be rooted in the
references themselves, which disproves the existence of hindsight bias.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to establish a
reasonable expectation of success in implementing its proposed
combination. PO Resp. 56–57; PO Sur-reply 1–3. In particular, Patent
Owner criticizes Dr. Solberg’s testimony that “[t]he precise computational
techniques that would be used to evaluate the cost function of [Petitioner’s]
proposed combination would have been well within the capabilities and
creativity of persons of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 56 (quoting Ex. 1002
¶ 100 n.9). Patent Owner contends this statement is conclusory and
unsupported by evidence. Id. at 56–57; see also PO Sur-reply 1 (same
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
53
argument). Patent Owner also argues that it has “submitted unrebutted
expert opinion demonstrating that a POSA would not have had a reasonable
expectation of success.” PO Sur-reply 2 (citing PO Resp. 62; Ex. 2035
¶¶ 304, 306).
Yet Patent Owner’s arguments focus on a single statement about
general computational techniques and do not address the totality of evidence
on expected success. We note that the first term of Petitioner’s proposed
cost function pertains to Brahme’s theory for determining an optimal
collimator angle to enhance conformity. See Pet. 38–39, 44–45, 49. As
acknowledged by Patent Owner, Brahme’s theory was well known in the art,
and Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s descriptions of Brahme’s
theory based on Webb. PO Resp. 55–56 n.9. Given that Brahme’s theory
was conventional at the time of the ’490 patent, we find there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success in implementing a conformity cost
term based on Brahme’s theory. As such, we turn to the issue of expected
success as it pertains the efficiency cost term in Petitioner’s combination.
In particular, Mohan’s equation (10), which incorporates equation (7),
supplies the delivery efficiency portion of the recited “cost function” in
Petitioner’s analysis. See Pet. 40–45, 49. As asserted by Dr. Solberg and
Dr. Chang, this equation—along with Mohan’s teaching of “optimiz[ing] the
collimator angle for each beam in order to find orientations which minimize
fluctuations” (Ex. 1006, 1237)—would have motivated an ordinarily skilled
artisan to implement equation (10) in order to minimize complexity as a
function of the collimator angle. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91, 93, 97, 100–102; Ex. 1023
¶¶ 41–45; Ex. 2032, 206:20–207:2. Dr. Chang further testifies about a 2001
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
54
study by Williams14 (Ex. 1024, “2001 Williams study”) (after Mohan but
before the time of the ’490 patent) that “confirms that a POSA in 2003
would have been motivated to, and successful in, combining Mohan’s
teachings as part of an ‘exemplary implementation’ of collimator angle
optimization described by Dr. Solberg.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 97–102; Ex. 1024). In light of the 2001 Williams study (see Ex. 1023
¶¶ 47–50; Ex. 1024), Dr. Chang concludes that “a POSA in 2003 would
have had a high expectation that optimizing the collimator angle would
successfully produce beneficial results, which as demonstrated by the 2001
Williams study, includes the potential of reducing total MUs by as much as
40%.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 50. We credit the 2001 Williams study as evidence of
expected success for the efficiency cost term. See Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 47–50;
Ex. 1024. We also are persuaded of expected success by the fact that Mohan
discloses a ready algorithm for reducing complexity. Ex. 1006,
equations (7), (10); see also Ex. 2032, 206:20–207:2 (Dr. Solberg testifying
that “the algorithm is essentially there; it’s the right-hand part of
equation 7.”).
As mentioned above, we find Dr. Solberg’s testimony on the rationale
for the combination more persuasive and consistent with the record than
Mr. Chase’s testimony. For example, Mr. Chase testifies that “Mohan’s
equations would not be efficiently applied to the bidirectional dynamic
motion of Otto or Chang” because “different mathematics” would have

14 Patent Owner calls the 2001 Williams study improper reply evidence. PO
Sur-reply 9. We find it to be directly responsive to Patent Owner’s
arguments about reasonable expectation of success and supportive of
Petitioner’s arguments made in the Petition. See Pet. 40–48.
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
55
made the combination difficult or impossible. Ex. 2035 ¶ 304. Yet
Dr. Solberg testifies that Mohan’s teachings “allow[] the collimator leaves to
travel in a direction with a short leaf travel distance and minimized
fluctuations in intensity, and thereby deliver the desired radiation with
improved efficiency.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. In light of one of Chang’s stated
goals, i.e., treatment delivery efficiency (Ex. 1004, 11:10–12), and its
teaching of optimizing the collimator angle to improve efficiency (id. at
9:52–67), we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
expected success in implementing Mohan’s function to minimize “beam-on
time” and minimize MUs as part of an overall cost function. See Ex. 1002
¶¶ 104–108. And, even if Petitioner’s proposed combination used only one
direction of leaf movement in Otto’s (or Chang’s) system, we view an
ordinarily skilled artisan’s choice in this regard to be the type of creative
step a person of ordinary skill would have taken to attain efficiency. See id.
¶ 101; see also Ex. 1025, 72:19–73:7 (Mr. Chase testifying about the ability
to implement step-and-shoot delivery with unidirectional leaves). Thus, we
credit Dr. Solberg’s testimony.
Based on the entire trial record, we are persuaded that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine Otto, Chang, Webb, and
Mohan and would have reasonably expected success in doing so.

f. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1
Petitioner has persuasively shown that the combination of Otto,
Chang, Webb, and Mohan teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also
has also put forth persuasive reasons for combining these references and has
established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
56
expectation of success in making the combination. On the entire trial record,
we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination
of Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan.

6. Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites the step of
rejecting the change in the radiation beam arrangement if the
change of the radiation beam arrangement significantly leads to
a lesser correspondence to the desired prescription and
accepting the change of the radiation beam arrangement if the
change of the radiation beam arrangement both leads to more
radiation delivery efficiency and does not lead to significantly
less correspondence to the desired prescription.
Ex. 1001, 10:66–11:8. Petitioner relies on its proposed combination from
claim 1, which results in an overall cost function that outputs lower values
when an evaluated collimator angle leads to greater conformity and
enhanced delivery efficiency. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101, 110;
Ex. 1004, 10:34–36, 11:10–12; Ex. 1005, 234; Ex. 1006, 1229). Petitioner
notes that changes in collimator angle would be accepted only if the change
leads to a lower value for the overall cost function. Id. (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 111; Ex. 1005, 344). Petitioner contends that, under its proposed cost
function, a proposed arrangement would be not be accepted (i.e., rejected)
where it results in significantly less conformity, because it would lead to a
significantly higher cost value. Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 111).
The second part of claim 4 concerns a situation where a proposed
arrangement “leads to more radiation delivery efficiency” and “does not lead
to significantly less correspondence to the desired prescription.” Petitioner
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
57
notes that greater efficiency lowers the value of the overall cost function,
whereas a slight decrease in conformity would not increase the overall cost
function by much, if at all. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). As a result, the
overall cost function would be lower, which results in accepting the
proposed arrangement. Id.
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 1. Given that the aim of optimization is to minimize a cost
function (see Ex. 1005, 344), we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed
overall cost function discussed in claim 1 would (1) reject radiation beam
arrangements leading to significantly less conformity and (2) accept
radiation beam arrangements that do not lead to significantly less conformity
but increase efficiency. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 4 would have been obvious over the combination of Otto,
Chang, Webb, and Mohan.

7. Claim 17
Independent claim 17 is an apparatus claim with limitations similar to
those of claim 1. Ex. 1001, 14:13–32. Petitioner relies mostly on its
analysis of claim 1, though Petitioner adds a few citations and explanations
to address the additional limitations of claim 17. See Pet. 57–61. For
example, claim 17 recites “a multi-leaf collimator having a plurality of
selectable discrete collimator angles.” Ex. 1001, 14:15–16. Petitioner cites
Otto’s Figures 2A and 2B, which “depict two exemplary MLC
configurations that have different collimator angles.” Pet. 58–59
(reproducing Ex. 1003, Figs. 2A, 2B) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18, 28). Claim 17
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
58
also recites “a computer in communication with the multi-leaf collimator.”
Ex. 1001, 14:21–22. Petitioner cites Otto’s teaching of a control system that
“typically comprises a computer processor” and that “receives parameters
specifying the leaf positions and rotation angle for a sub field and actuates
the mechanism to cause the leaves to move to the desired positions and to
cause the multi-leaf collimator to be rotated to the desired angle.” Pet. 60
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Petitioner additionally notes that claim 17 recites
two different “parameters” in the same way that claim 1 recites a “second
cost function” and a “third cost function.” Id. Petitioner contends its
analysis of claim 1’s “second cost function” and “third cost function” applies
equally to claim 17’s “parameters” because “[i]t is fundamental knowledge
to persons of ordinary skill that mathematical functions can be expressed
using parameters.” Id. at 60–61 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 119; Ex. 1013, 1683).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 1. To the extent claim 17 differs from claim 1, we are
persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis regarding the recited “plurality of
selectable discrete collimator angles” (see Ex. 1003, Figs. 2A, 2B),
“computer” (see id. ¶ 26), and “parameters” (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 119) as set forth
above. Thus, based on this additional analysis and Petitioner’s analysis for
claim 1, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the subject matter of claim 17 would have been obvious over
the combination of Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan.

8. Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further recites that “the
parameters to enhance delivery efficiency include a value of a maximum
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
59
effective length for a multi-leaf collimator leaf pair of the plurality of multi-
leaf collimator leaf pairs having the maximum effective length.” Ex. 1001,
14:33–37. Petitioner contends M l in equation (7) of Mohan (see supra
§ II.E.4) is a value of “effective length.” Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123;
Ex. 1006, 1229). Petitioner further contends the value M in equation (10) of
Mohan (see supra § II.E.4) “is a value of the maximum effective length for
the MLC leaf pair in an MLC (which has multiple leaf pairs) that ha[s] the
maximum effective length, M l .” Pet. 63–64 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 124;
Ex. 1006, 1229) (internal quotations and emphases omitted). Petitioner
additionally notes that “the equation for M would be adapted as the
mathematical function for enhancing delivery efficiency in the overall cost
function of the proposed combination.” Id. at 64.
Patent Owner contends that “Mohan does not evaluate ‘maximum
effective length for a multi-leaf collimator leaf pair of the plurality of multi-
leaf collimator leaf pairs having the maximum effective length.’” PO
Resp. 63 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 265). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Solberg
“asserted that a term ‘M’ in one of Mohan’s equations was ‘similar’ to a
‘maximum effective length.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2032, 167:3–169:2).
In reply, Petitioner cites Mr. Chase’s testimony that “maximum
effective length” refers to “the furthest traveled distance of all the MLC
pairs involved in the treatment. It would be the MLC pair that has traveled
the furthest, in essence.” Pet. Reply 23–24 (citing Ex. 1025, 42:2–10).
According to Petitioner, “[t]he beam-on time equation for each individual
leaf pair M l . . . incorporates the term , which captures the
distance traveled by the leaf pair.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88–89).
Petitioner further notes “the total beam-on time, M, incorporates the beam-
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
60
on times of all leaf pairs in order to identify the maximum value
(‘max ’),” so “M ‘includ[es] a value of a maximum effective length.’”
Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 123; Ex. 1023 ¶ 42).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Based on the plain
language of claim 18, “the parameters to enhance delivery efficiency” need
only “include a value of a maximum effective length for a multi-leaf
collimator leaf pair.” Ex. 1001, 14:33–36 (emphases added). This does not
mean that the parameters need to directly evaluate maximum effective
length, as Patent Owner’s argument seems to imply. See PO Resp. 63. We
are persuaded that Mohan’s total beam-on time, M, “includes a value of
maximum effective length” by virtue of including the term for
the furthest traveled leaf pair as part of the calculation of max . See
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122–125; Ex. 1006, 1229. The value of M also represents an
efficiency term in Petitioner’s mapping. See Pet. 40–43. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 18 would have been obvious over the combination of
Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan.

9. Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and recites
the parameters to enhance conformity of the radiation beam
arrangement include an area difference between an area of an
opening in the multi-leaf collimator which the multi-leaf
collimator can define when approaching correspondence with a
target shape in a beams eye view of the multi-leaf collimator
and an area of the target shape in the same beams eye view of
the multi-leaf collimator, a view from the perspective of the
opening in the multi-leaf collimator along an axis of the
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
61
radiation beam defining the beams eye view of the multi-leaf
collimator.
Ex. 1001, 14:38–48. Petitioner contends this is nothing more than a
recitation of Brahme’s orientation theory, which is in the prior art. Pet. 64–
65 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:33–46); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 127 (Dr. Solberg’s
testimony regarding the same). As such, Petitioner cites Webb’s teachings
of Brahme’s orientation theory, which seeks to “minimize the volume
(represented by an area ‘seen’ in the beam’s-eye-view) of normal tissue
outside the target volume.” Pet. 65 (quoting Ex. 1005, 234) (emphasis
omitted); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 128 (Dr. Solberg’s testimony regarding the
same).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 18. We are persuaded that Webb teaches enhancing
conformity using Brahme’s theory by minimizing the difference in area
between the collimator opening and the target shape in the beam’s eye view.
See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 127–128; Ex. 1005, 234. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Otto,
Chang, Webb, and Mohan.

III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
subject matter of claims 1, 4, and 17–19 would have been obvious over the
combination of Otto, Chang, Webb, and Mohan.15

15 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
62
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 4, and 17–19 of the ’490 patent are
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude is denied;
and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

In summary:

Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
1, 4, 17–
19
103(a) Otto, Chang,
Webb, Mohan
1, 4, 17–19
IPR2020-00076
Patent 7,015,490 B2
63
For PETITIONER:

Tamara Frazier
Christopher Adams
Vid Bhakar
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
tamara.frazier@squirepb.com
christopher.adams@squirepb.com
vid.bhakar@squirepb.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Anthony Son
Matthew Ruedy
Kaveh Saba
Jeremy Edwards
MADDOX EDWARDS PLLC
ason@meiplaw.com
mruedy@meiplaw.com
ksaba@meiplaw.com
jedwards@meiplaw.com