`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 27, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and SHEILA F.
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BYRON L. PICKARD, ESQUIRE
`MICHELLE K. HOLOUBEK, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`MARK CONSILVIO, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JUSTIN B. KIMBLE, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY BRAGALONE, ESQUIRE
`Bragalone Conroy, P.C.
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
`
`and
`
`R. SCOTT RHOADES, ESQUIRE
`Warren Rhoades
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, February
`
`27, 2018, commencing at 2:15 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE McSHANE: Good afternoon. This is the final hearing in
`the Apple v. Valencell case. It's going to be the combined hearing for the
`IPR2017, it's the 317 case and the 318 case. I will also note for the record
`that the Fitbit v. Valencell cases, the 2017-1553 and 1554 cases have been
`joined to these cases.
`I think this morning we entered appearances, so we can just repeat
`the appearances. Are they the same appearances this afternoon? Actually,
`I'll seeing different counsel at different tables. So let's have appearances,
`please. Petitioner.
`MR. SPECHT: Yes, Your Honor. Michael Specht for petitioner,
`lead counsel. With me is Jason Fitzsimmons as well as Michelle Holoubek.
`All of us are with Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and & Fox here on behalf of
`petitioner, Apple, Inc.
`MR. KIMBLE: Thank you, Your Honor. Justin Kimble for the
`patent owner. The same backup counsel are with me, Jeff Bragalone, Bill
`Kennedy, Jon Rastegar, Scott Rhoades, and the client representatives, Dr.
`Steven LeBoeuf and Mr. Todd Ackman from Valencell.
`JUDGE McSHANE: So Judge McNamara provided guidance this
`morning on how we are going to proceed. Here we are going to have an
`hour per side. So it's going to go petitioner, patent owner, and if petitioner
`has reserved time, then we are going to have rebuttal.
`One question, are there still standing objections to demonstratives?
`There was a joint motion filed on that as of, I think, Friday night.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`MR. SPECHT: There are, Your Honor. As you know, we have a
`significant number of objections to their numerous slides. And I believe
`they have continuing objections as well.
`MR. BRAGALONE: Yes, Your Honor, both sides have objections
`they have submitted.
`JUDGE McSHANE: So on this issue, let me make a few
`comments. First of all, the demonstratives that we have here are
`voluminous. In particular, patent owner has demonstratives exceeding
`150 pages of slides for one hour of argument. This is excessive. So I'll note
`that, number one.
`Number two, as to the other objections, patent owner's objections
`to petitioner's demonstratives are directed to the reliance on the petitioner's
`reply. Patent owner here may present additional arguments regarding any
`allegations of unacceptable scope of the reply, but we are declining to strike
`any portions of petitioner's demonstratives.
`As to the objections to the patent owner's demonstratives, any
`figures -- now, everybody knows here that demonstratives are used as a
`visual aid. So they are not evidence. That said, if there are figures in the set
`of slides that are not in the record, we are going to be disregarding those
`today.
`
`And petitioner also objected to new arguments and misleading
`statements that are alleged to be in the demonstratives as well as exhibits and
`figures that were not previously cited. We are going to discern the
`appropriateness of the arguments and the references and determine
`whether -- we can figure out whether they have been in the papers before
`and the citations and the like. So we don't have a jury here. They are used
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`as your aid and they are not going to be serving as evidence. So we'll just
`deal with it as it comes. And that's about the extent of it. Okay. Any
`questions on that?
`MR. BRAGALONE: No, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McSHANE: One other comment, and this goes to Judge
`Arpin's comment this morning, we are mixing up two cases here. And to the
`extent -- you did a great job this morning where you were differentiating
`between the cases. Here there is more overlap, perhaps. With that said, if
`you are talking about one particular case versus another, if you could try to
`flag that, please.
`So we'll put an hour on the clock for you. And I assume you want
`to reserve some time, counsel?
`MR. SPECHT: We do, Your Honor. I would like to reserve
`25 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE McSHANE: So what we are going to do here is I'm going
`to put the full hour on here and then you can figure out, you know, how
`much time. We'll look and see how much time it is. So you got the full hour
`that's going to start here whenever you are ready.
`MR. SPECHT: Again, good afternoon, Your Honors. In both of
`these proceedings, we have demonstrated in our petitions for each matter
`that all of the challenged claims are obvious and unpatentable. Patent owner
`has failed to rebut our showing that all claims are nonpatentable. Rather,
`what we find here is that patent owner has repeatedly mischaracterized the
`prior art and presented arguments that are inconsistent or contradicted by
`their own expert and the prior art. In general, with respect to our
`obviousness grounds that rely on combinations of references, they have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`presented a shotgun approach to try to demonstrate that we didn't show that
`those references should be combined.
`As you know, the '830 patent is a continuation of the '269 patent
`with claims that are very similar to those of the '830 patent. In particular,
`independent claims address the same embodiment represented primarily by
`Figures 22A and B of the '830 patent and includes the same well-known
`structural elements with minor variations. The dependent claims primarily
`add the same well-known structural elements in both patents such as a lens,
`processor, transmitter and light-reflective materials.
`I am now putting slide 2, and this is from the '830 patent IPR on
`the ELMO. In my comments today, I will address the '830 patent IPR first,
`which includes one set of grounds based on the primary reference of
`Goodman in combination with a number of secondary references for the
`dependent claims as shown there, Hicks, Hannula, Asada and Delonzor.
`Each of these references is also used, as you're well aware, in the 318 IPR
`proceeding that addresses the '269 patent. In the '269 patent IPR you know
`that we have two sets of grounds, one which includes the Goodman
`reference as the primary reference, and the other which includes the Asada
`reference as the primary reference. I will principally address the Asada
`reference, the Asada grounds after going through the '830 IPR proceeding.
`To get us back into the flow of the technology, I want to now put
`up demonstrative slide number 5 from the '830 patent IPR. What that is is
`this is Figure 22B, 22A and 23 of the '830 patent. And if we focus our
`attention on Figure 22B, I just wanted to walk through and give a context for
`our discussion and what elements we believe are in dispute and why we
`think that we have demonstrated that they are shown by the prior art.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`So if you notice at the top you have an emitter 24, a light emitter.
`It emits light. It goes through the light transmissive material 19, that
`chamber. It enters into a window 74W there on the left. It goes through the
`finger. So this device is wrapped around your finger in this embodiment. It
`goes through the finger, comes out the other side of the device through what
`is also labeled as 74W, enters in another light transmissive material and
`makes its way back to the detector, which detector 26. That's the basic
`principle of operation of the device in the '830 and '269 patent. And as I
`said, the claims claim this rather broadly.
`Now I would like to turn to Goodman. This is on petitioner's slide
`6. This is two figures from the Goodman reference. At the bottom you see
`Figure 4 which is showing the device for the sensor of Goodman wrapped
`around a finger. At the top you see a planar image of the device. I wanted
`to walk through the device, explain its operation. So if you look to the
`left-hand side of Figure 2C at the top, you again see an LED and emitter 24.
`That emitter emits light represented by the arrows. That goes through
`apertures 40 which we've labeled there annotated as a window. And that
`window is through the cladding material. Atop of that cladding material you
`have a light transmissive film 45.
`And then keep in mind this is wrapped around the finger. It would
`be up against the finger at this point. The light goes through that light
`transmissive material into the finger. It travels through the finger, exits on
`the other side of the finger, goes back through the light transmissive material
`45. Then as you see the arrows, the light goes through aperture 41 which
`we've annotated as a window there in the cladding material, back into the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`photodetector 14. That's the basic operation. It operates very, very similarly
`to the operation of the '292, the Figure 22B description.
`Now, with that background in mind in terms of the technology,
`there really are three with respect to -- let me back up. The issues here only
`relate to independent claim 1 in terms of patent owner rebutting whether or
`not the references disclose these elements. All of the other issues with
`respect to the dependent claims all hinge on their arguments that they claim
`we haven't shown a motivation to combine.
`So I wanted to talk about these three issues in particular and focus
`on these. And really the second two bullets are related. The first bullet is
`whether or not Goodman discloses a window formed in the layer of cladding
`material that serves as a light-guiding interface to the body of the subject.
`So this is a limitation in the independent claim. Our position, obviously, is
`that it's disclosed by Goodman, and we think that's very clear. I'm now
`putting back up Figure 6 -- or slide 6. And you can see here that you have
`the light emitting diode sending light through a window and you have that
`light coming back through the window.
`With respect to the second two bullets, these relate to the
`limitation, the wherein clause limitation where you have a first and second
`direction of light that are substantially parallel in the limitation. And then
`the third bullet is the light transmissive material is configured such that it
`supports or allows the light to meet those first and second direction
`limitations.
`So let's talk about those in a little bit more detail. So I'm now
`going to our slide 10. And this is dealing with whether or not Goodman
`discloses a window formed in the layer of cladding material that serves as a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`light-guiding interface of the body of the subject, the first bullet that I
`identified for you. It is our position that it certainly does. We have an
`excerpt from our petition. Goodman discloses that opaque tape layer 37 is
`apertured, respective apertures 40 and 41, which I just highlighted to you.
`These apertures allow the light to pass. We think that's very clear.
`Now, in patent owner's attempt to rebut this, they have created an
`assembly of Goodman that simply does not make sense when you look at --
`it's inconsistent with -- putting back up here, sorry Judge Arpin for going
`back and forth, but slide 6. You put slide 6 back up, what we saw in slide 10
`was what they did was they pushed the LED and the emitter all the way up
`through the cladding material. Why did they do that? Because then they
`could make an argument that says, well, the light is not actually going
`through those windows. It's the LED and the detector that are pushed
`through. Therefore, light doesn't go through the window. We think that is
`false and it's inconsistent with the diagrams and inconsistent with the
`disclosures in Goodman.
`So with respect to the diagram on why we believe our
`interpretation is correct, a couple of reasons. You see those arrows, they
`show light actually going through the windows. They show light LED 24,
`the light is going through and emitter or detector 14, you see the arrows, it's
`receiving the light. It's clearly indicative of the light going through the
`windows.
`Now I'm putting up demonstrative slide 11. And patent owner's
`declarant essentially admits this. So we talked to him. Contrary to
`Valencell's position, Valencell's declarant, Dr. Titus, agreed with Apple
`stating that my understanding is that the apertures, referring to the apertures
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`in Goodman, would allow light to pass through them. This is consistent
`with the figure. This is consistent with our expert's testimony. And their
`own expert made the same admission.
`So now I want to turn to the next bullet, the second bullet on the
`slide which deals with the first and second directions, whether or not --
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, can we just back up. There is a
`dispute about claim construction for this light guide term, light-guiding
`interface term. And the patent owner is proposing that it would be an
`interface that delivers light along the path. Is it your position that Goodman
`meets that construction?
`MR. SPECHT: It is our position. It is our position that that's an
`incorrect construction. But if the Board adopts it, we believe Goodman still
`meets that. We believe our construction -- and actually, I shouldn't call it a
`construction. Our response to their construction, if you recall in our petition,
`we said that light-guiding interface, a plain and ordinary meaning. And then
`in our petitioner reply in response to their proposed construction, we argued
`that it simply should be a window that allows light to pass through. And
`either construction Goodman teaches this element or discloses this element.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Does our construction of light guide in the
`case we discussed this morning, IPR2017-315, have any impact on light
`guide interface here?
`MR. SPECHT: It does not.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And why not?
`MR. SPECHT: Because what's key is we are focused on the light
`guide interface, the complete term. And interface is the key here in
`distinguishing from light guide in and of itself.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: If we were to construe the light guide in
`any particular way -- I think there was some discussion it really isn't a lot of
`dispute as to what the light guide means in the 315 case. So assuming we
`adopt that construction, is it just, does the interface portion with the rest of
`the light guide construction apply?
`MR. SPECHT: I believe that's the case, Your Honor. I would
`have to go back and look at the notes from the transcript this morning, but I
`believe that's the case. And the key is that this is the interface that allows
`light to pass through.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: That's fine. But it doesn't change
`anything? In terms of the light guide itself, that's all water under the bridge?
`MR. SPECHT: That's correct.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you.
`MR. SPECHT: Now I want to turn back to petitioner's slide 12.
`And this is focusing on the limitation --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you go to petitioner's slide 12,
`could you go back to slide 10 for a moment, please. Now, am I to
`understand that the disagreement here between the two drawings at the
`bottom of this slide, one labeled PO's assembly of Goodman and petitioner's
`annotated figure of Goodman, that the difference here is the extent to which
`a portion of the emitter or detector extends beyond the layer 37?
`MR. SPECHT: That's correct, Your Honor. I think when you are
`referring to the figures at the bottom, you are referring to Figure 7A in our
`petitioner reply. We used Figure 7A to further support our position that the
`light emitter and the light detector would not be fully pushed through the
`substrate 37 even if they were pushed in there somewhat. And this is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`another embodiment from Goodman that highlights how when you push the
`emitter into that area, it's still not fully pushed through. It's going to be
`recessed, and in which case the aperture still is providing or serving as a
`light-guiding interface.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Apart from 7A, is there any disclosure in
`Goodman that talks about how far the emitter and detector are pushed
`through layer 37?
`MR. SPECHT: So we refer to the figure -- what is the figure
`number now -- Figure 2C which shows that they are not pushed through and
`really highlight the fact that shows the light passing through the cladding
`material interface in both cases, going into the finger and then returning
`from the finger. Also Goodman is concerned with conformance to the skin,
`which would be another reason why you won't want to have essentially
`pushing these devices all the way through and creating essentially bumps on
`the skin not being conformal to the skin.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Well, 2C is identified in column 8, line 15 as an
`exploded view. That's column 8, line 15 of Goodman. So I don't know how
`much 2C really tells us about how far these go through. Can you explain
`why this is so significant?
`MR. SPECHT: I think it's significant for one reason for sure is if
`you look at the rays of light that are shown there, if indeed it was an
`exploded view where the light was not at all going through those apertures
`or windows, it would not show the light going and the emitter going all the
`way through the window. It would have those arrows higher up.
`Actually, let me put it back on the screen, slide 6, so that it wasn't
`showing a light actually going through the windows, because under their
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`proposed assembly, the light wouldn't be doing that. That's the whole
`difference in our opinions. And likewise on the detector side, it's showing
`the light going through in an opposite direction. So I think that makes it
`clear that there is not an intent that you are going to push these devices all
`the way through that layer just merely looking at this figure even as an
`exploded view.
`JUDGE ARPIN: But unlike the embodiment of 7A which is a
`different embodiment of the invention, we don't have a similar drawing
`showing the unexploded Figure 2C embodiment; is that correct?
`MR. SPECHT: That's correct. And that's why we referred you to
`7A. So in a situation where they would sit in there and be recessed, they are
`still not pushed all the way through to further support our position.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counsel. Please continue.
`MR. SPECHT: Now, returning to slide 12, this is going to the first
`and second directions, again, being substantially parallel. And here we
`believe it's really straightforward. In our petition we talk about in Goodman
`how you have the emitter and the detector. They are disposed on the
`opposite sides of the body part. They are opposite from one another. So in
`general, you would have light that is going in substantially parallel
`directions. That's further explained in the petition where Dr. Anthony talks
`about how the emitted light is reflected and refracted within the patient's
`body, often multiple times. So what you'll have is a ray of light coming out
`of the LED. It bumps around in there. There's many different directions,
`and in some of those directions, a second direction as it hits the emitter
`would be parallel to the original or substantially parallel to the original
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`direction of the light. And that's what Dr. Anthony has testified to here and
`what we've highlighted in our petition.
`With respect to the notion that the light is reflecting and refracting
`and going in multiple directions through the finger, I've put up slide 13.
`This was also confirmed by patent owner's declarant, who admitted that the
`light would be impinging in multiple directions from the emitter and
`traveling in those different directions as it hits the detector.
`With respect to the light transmissive material, I'm now on
`demonstrative slide 14, the light transmissive material is configured to meet
`the first and second directions. So here again from our petition we highlight
`from page 31 is delivered through the corresponding window 40 in the
`cladding layer and then through the clear polyester layer. So Goodman we
`are talking about the light traveling through the clear polyester layer 45
`which is that light transmissive material, and it's acting in a very similar way
`as the transmissive material in Figure 22A of the '830 patent. And we
`reached the conclusion in our petition Goodman discloses that material.
`That is configured to deliver light from the emitter to the body and collect
`light from the body of the subject back into the detector.
`We also provide in our reply, this is on slide 15 now, as I indicated
`that Goodman's light transmissive material, that clear polyester layer 45, it
`functions in the same way as the light transmissive material in the '830
`patent which is also supported there by our expert's declaration.
`Now I want to move to slide 16. As I indicated in my opening
`comments, there was a shotgun approach to all sorts of potential issues,
`detriments, reasons why these motivations for combination wouldn't work
`that we presented. It's our position that we did more than what was
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`necessary to demonstrate a motivation to combine in each of these. This
`slide, slide 16 highlights for each of the combinations where in our petition
`we talk about those. I'm not going to go through all of our arguments on
`these. I have a couple that I want to highlight.
`But I will emphasize the point that each of these applied references
`is from the field of noninvasive optical biosensors. They all have that
`common subject matter and focus as a starting point. When we went
`through our discussion on each these, we made clear to identify what the
`motivation was. We had a very solid background section in our petition and
`presented by Dr. Anthony given the state of the art the kinds of issues that
`individuals working on biosensors would be concerned with. And that
`formed the foundation for a lot of these combinations.
`So now I'm focused on slide 17. So slide 17, there's the issue of in
`their patent owner response they identified some detriments with the various
`combinations. Dr. Anthony was aware of those. He talked about tradeoffs
`generally. We made our showing that there was a motivation to combine
`and that he was aware of those tradeoffs. And despite those tradeoffs, they
`still would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these
`references.
`I just want to highlight one issue with respect to the motivation to
`combine. It's sort of representative of a lot of the arguments in a sense. This
`is our slide 18. At the top this relates to the ground 2, Goodman in view of
`Hicks rendering claims 5 and 15 obvious. Claim 5 and 15 add a lens to the
`system. And here at the top is Hicks Figure 6 which we have annotated in
`red what are the elements of that figure. And you can see there's apertures
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`92 and 88, and you have a clear substrate that sits above that, clear substrate
`80.
`
`Now, what patent owner's inaccurately annotated figure does is
`they contend that there is this significant buffer in the Hicks reference shown
`there in the red. And in doing so, they indicate, well, that's why in Hicks
`you needed a lens. You don't have that kind of a buffer in Goodman, so
`therefore, there would be no motivation to combine these. We think that's
`certainly flawed because that buffer doesn't really exist. And we
`demonstrated that in our papers. But that is sort of representative of the
`types of motivation to combine arguments they have made.
`I now am going to move forward to the motion to amend in this
`case. This is demonstrative slide 22. Again, three bullets here. Patent
`owner failed to meet its burden of responding to the instituted grounds. Our
`opposition, again, we provided significant and extensive rationales for why
`we would combine the references. And Han very clearly discloses reducing
`footstep motion artifacts during running.
`The primary -- this is slide 24. The primary amendment, if you
`will, to the substitute claims is this clause, herein the base comprises a signal
`processor configured to receive and process signals, dot, dot, dot, to reduce
`footstep motion artifacts. That's what has been added here.
`Moving to slide 25, so with respect to slide 25, our position is they
`haven't met their threshold burden. Even after Aqua Products, there are
`certain things that they must do, threshold burdens. And that was in chief
`judge -- his memo on the impacts of Aqua Products identified this issue.
`Motions to amend must still address the notion. The motion to amend did
`not address how the proposed amendments overcome the instituted grounds
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`and thus do not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial
`as required by 37 CFR 42.121(a)(2). They simply never address any of the
`references, Goodman, Hicks, Hannula, Delonzor in their motion to amend.
`And we could stop there and deny this motion to amend, but we
`also think that our combination renders the proposed claim unpatentable.
`This is demonstrative slide 26. There were a lot of reasons that we cited in
`our opposition to combine Goodman and Han. Highlighted here in yellow, a
`person of ordinary skill would have understood that Goodman's technique of
`a low mass sensor that conforms to the skin would not have been effective at
`reducing inertia-based motion artifacts and therefore, they would look to
`Han to do that.
`The arguments that they did make, this is on slide 27, are really
`conclusory and unsupported by the evidence. There's two parts to that. First
`they talk about complexity, size or mass. We've refuted these in our papers.
`But they are just sort of a random shotgun approach to various things,
`detriments, if you will. But then also they make the argument that you want
`to incorporate Han's large, sturdy, solid ring into Goodman. Well, that's a
`red herring. We are not looking to incorporate all of the ring of Han into
`Goodman. What we are looking at is the sensor and the algorithm for
`processing data. That's not a large amount of additional elements that we are
`adding.
`
`And then lastly, they dispute the fact that Han discloses reducing
`footstep motion artifacts during running. This is our slide 28. It's explicit.
`Han absolutely does disclose, as the first portion is, from our opposition
`where we highlight that Han talks about all the way up to walking or running
`and recognizing that impacts the sensor. And then there's an excerpt there at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`the bottom that very clearly shows that the Han reference is concerned or the
`Han device is concerned with hand motion from running, walking, et cetera.
`So we think it's pretty clear that it's disclosed.
`Now I want to move to switching gears now to the '269
`proceeding. '269, slide 2, and this is just a summary of the grounds focused
`here on grounds 1 through 5 which deal with the Asada reference as the
`primary reference.
`And I want to put up slide 7. Now, these are the '269
`demonstratives, Your Honors. Slide 7 is an annotated Figure 11. The
`annotations show how the Asada device works. Again, you have emitter 4.
`It emits light through this light transmissive material which has -- and then
`on top of that is the cladding where it shows two windows. Again, this is
`wrapped around the finger. The light goes into the finger and the light
`comes back through the window, through the light transmissive material
`back into the photodetector working essentially very similar to Goodman
`and -- were you going to ask -- Goodman and the '269 and '830 Figure 22A
`disclosures.
`Now, with respect -- I'll leave that there for a minute. With respect
`to this, there are a couple of issues. One, patent owner takes issue with the
`annotations that we have added here that did not occur in Asada. These
`were provided by our expert. Our expert believed that this was the way a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this diagram. Furthermore,
`to corroborate that, he referred to the Swedlow reference that teaches a very
`similar device which did have labeling for each of these features, and based
`on that it was his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`interpret this diagram this way.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`
`
`The other issue with respect to Asada is, frankly, whether or not in
`the light transmissive materials those dashed lines mean that you cut out the
`material or the material stays. It's our position that those dashed lines, you
`don't -- the mat
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
