IPR2017—003 17
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 — PAGE 1
`
`EXHIBIT 2110
`
`EXHIBIT 2110
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 1
`
`
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 — PAGE 1
`
`EXHIBIT 2110
`
`EXHIBIT 2110
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`Filed on Behalf of Valencell, Inc.
`By: Sanford E. Warren Jr. (SWarren@wriplaw.com)
`R. Scott Rhoades (SRhoades@wriplaw.com)
`Warren Rhoades LLP
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`Tel: 972-550-2955
`Fax: 469-442-0091
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-00318 - U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`Case IPR2017-00317 – U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`DECLARATION OF ALBERT H. TITUS IN SUPPORT OF
`VALENCELL’S MOTIONS TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PAGE 1
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`
`I, Albert Titus, declare as follows:
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`1. My name is Dr. Albert H. Titus. I have been asked to submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Valencell, Inc. (“Valencell” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) in connection with Motions to Amend for U.S. Patent Nos
`
`8,989,830 (“the ’830 patent”) and 8,886,269 (“the ‘269 patent”).
`
`2. I have been retained as a technical expert by Warren Rhoades LLP and
`
`Valencell to study and provide my opinions on the prior art related to
`
`the claim amendments for the ’830 patent and the ‘269 patent. I have
`
`also been retained by Valencell and Bragalone Conroy PC to study and
`
`provide my opinions related to the Patent Owner’s Response for the
`
`IPRs involving the ’830 patent and the ‘269 patent and I hereby
`
`incorporate by reference that Declaration.
`
`3. As part of my study, I have reviewed and am familiar with the prior art
`
`and specifications of the ’830 patent and the ‘269 patent.
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`4. I expect to testify regarding my background, qualifications, and
`
`experience relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
`
`PAGE 2
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`5. I am a tenured, Full Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the
`
`University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. I am also the
`
`current Department Chair. My curriculum vitae (CV), has the complete
`
`outline of my experience, publications, patents, and related work. In
`
`these paragraphs, I highlight the experiences relevant to the topic at
`
`hand.
`
`
`
`6. I earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Electrical Engineering and a
`
`Master of Science (MS) in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`at Buffalo in 1989 and 1991, respectively. My MS thesis focused on
`
`optical pulse compression. In that work, I studied methods for
`
`generating ultra-short optical pulses using a laser source and optical
`
`fibers. I attended the Georgia Institute of Technology for my Ph.D. (in
`
`Electrical Engineering) and completed my degree in 1997. My Ph.D.
`
`research was centered around silicon-based vision systems. This work
`
`combined knowledge of biological visual systems, silicon-based
`
`transistor integrated electronics, and silicon-based photodetectors (the
`
`precursors to today’s CMOS cameras). I was able to develop an
`
`integrated circuit (“chip”) that combined processing circuitry and
`
`CMOS photodetectors
`
`to perform depth perception processing
`
`mimicking animals’ visual systems.
`
`PAGE 3
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7. After completing my Ph.D., I was a faculty member at the Rochester
`
`Institute of Technology where I taught numerous courses in Electrical
`
`Engineering. In 2001, I moved to the University at Buffalo. I continued
`
`my research into silicon visual processing and also moved into optical
`
`sensing for chemical and biological applications. In 2008, I was asked
`
`to help lead the development of a new department, the Department of
`
`Biomedical Engineering. This department was formed and I am
`
`currently the Department Chair.
`
`8. My research and teaching activity has moved more into the biomedical
`
`field. I have numerous publications focused on sensing, and have six
`
`patents awarded and one additional patent pending. I have consulted
`
`with small companies and had sponsored research projects from various
`
`industry and federal sources.
`
`9. I have developed and taught courses in biomedical instrumentation.
`
`One particular course I created and have taught one time is “Advanced
`
`Biomedical Electronics.” This course focuses on developing wearable
`
`electronic sensing devices for measuring different biosignals. The
`
`primary project of this course requires that student teams develop a
`
`PAGE 4
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`wearable, microcontroller-based photoplethysmography system for
`
`measuring pulse rate and oxygen concentration.
`
`
`
`10. I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. Additional details about
`
`my employment history, fields of expertise, and publications are further
`
`described in my curriculum vitae. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Expert Witness Experience
`11. I am being compensated for the time I spend on this case at my normal
`
`consulting rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this
`
`investigation. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of
`
`this matter or the substance of my testimony.
`
`D. Information Considered
`12. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`13. In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`amended claims of the ’830 patent and the ‘269 patent, I am relying
`
`upon certain basic legal principles that counsel has explained to me.
`
`PAGE 5
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`14. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from
`
`what was known before the invention was made.
`
`15. I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art”
`
`and generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books,
`
`journal publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`16. I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The
`
`claims after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to
`
`the information in the prior art.
`
`17. I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis
`
`below compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are
`
`prior art.
`
`18. I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to
`
`“anticipate” the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made
`
`the claim “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand
`
`that Petitioner contends that certain references render obvious the
`
`PAGE 6
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`claims of the ’830 patent, but that Petitioner does not assert that any
`
`prior art anticipates any claim. My understanding of the applicable legal
`
`standards for obviousness is set forth below.
`
`A. Obviousness
`19. I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention
`
`at the time the invention was made.
`
`20. I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows: A patent may not be obtained
`
`though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth
`
`in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented 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. A patent is not invalid because of the manner in which the
`
`invention was made.
`
`21. I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards
`
`in my evaluation of whether the amended claims of the ’830 patent and
`
`‘269 patent would have been considered obvious.
`
`PAGE 7
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`22. I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question requires
`
`consideration of four factors (although not necessarily in the following
`
`order):
`
` The scope and content of the prior art;
`
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
` The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`23. In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the
`
`patent claim.
`
`24. I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by
`
`the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the
`
`field; unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the
`
`invention by the infringer or others in the field; the taking of licenses
`
`PAGE 8
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`25. I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. I also understand that an example of a solution in
`
`one field of endeavor may make that solution obvious in another related
`
`field. I also understand that market demands or design considerations
`
`may prompt variations of a prior art system or process, either in the
`
`same field or a different one, and that these variations will ordinarily be
`
`considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`26. I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered
`
`obvious. I understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been
`
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using that technique to improve the other device would have been
`
`obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected results or
`
`challenges in implementation.
`
`PAGE 9
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`27. I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
`
`but instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and
`
`experimentation that does no more than yield predictable results, which
`
`are inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would employ.
`
`28. I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the
`
`design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that all these issues may be considered to determine whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
`
`fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`29. I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and
`
`motivation.” I understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its
`
`decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the
`
`previous requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of an obviousness
`
`analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`PAGE 10
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have
`
`been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to
`
`explain why references would have been combined.
`
`30. I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to
`
`solve the same problem. I understand that under KSR standard, steps
`
`suggested by common sense are important and should be considered.
`
`Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond the particular application being described in a reference, that if
`
`something can be done once it is obvious to do it multiple times, and in
`
`many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field
`
`of endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other
`
`words, the prior art does not need to be directed towards solving the
`
`same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further, the individual
`
`prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem.
`
`PAGE 11
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`31. I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-
`
`obvious if one or more prior art references discourages or lead away
`
`from the line of inquiry disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does
`
`not “teach away” from an invention simply because the reference
`
`suggests that another embodiment of the invention is better or preferred.
`
`My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a clear
`
`indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because
`
`it would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should
`
`not be made). I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity.
`
`32. I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be
`
`the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature or
`
`knowledge, will drive design trends. Where there is such a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this
`
`leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation
`
`but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a
`
`PAGE 12
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The
`
`fact that a particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to
`
`try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even if no one
`
`attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated
`
`success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense
`
`rather than innovation.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`33. It is understood that the amended claims for both ‘269 and ‘830 are so
`
`written and interpreted that all of the subclaims (such as in claim 1 of
`
`‘269 and claims 1, 8, 11, and 18) have meaning in the order in which
`
`they are presented and described and that it is necessary to include all
`
`parts as described in the order given to achieve the results intended by
`
`the inventions.
`
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`34. It is my understanding that Valencell has not disputed Petitioner’s
`
`definition of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, specifically, a person
`
`who would have had (i) at least a four-year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical
`
`engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at
`
`PAGE 13
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`least two years of experience in academia or industry studying or
`
`developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive
`
`optical biosensors and (ii) would also be familiar with optical system
`
`design and signal processing.
`
`35. Based on my education and extensive experience cited herein, I believe
`
`I am qualified to provide opinions about the understanding and
`
`qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.
`
`V. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`A. The Amended Claims of the ‘269 and ‘830 Patents
`36. I was provided the final amendments to the ‘269 and ‘830 patents. I
`
`did not participate in the creation of the claim amendments of the ‘269
`
`and ‘830 patents. To the best of my knowledge, the claim amendments
`
`provided to me for the ‘269 and ‘830 patents were not subsequently
`
`modified.
`
`B. Prior Art Available
`37. The following prior art documents were publicly available or made
`
`available to me for my review: Prior art identified in the following
`
`Valencell IPRs (IPR2017-00315, IPR2017-00317, IPR2017-00318,
`
`IPR2017-00319, and IPR2017-00321); prior art identified in the
`
`litigations involving Apple and Fitbit; prior art identified on the
`
`PAGE 14
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`Valencell patents and the file histories; and prior art identified in the
`
`Valencell related patents and file histories.
`
`38. I have identified what I consider the relevant prior art related to the
`
`amended claims of the ‘269 and ‘830 patents.
`
`C. Hong Patent Application U.S. 2008/0132798
`39. The Hong patent application discloses a headset device configured to
`
`measure heart rate using a PPG sensor. The device is primarily intended
`
`for ear measurements, but no specific information on the sensing is
`
`provided. The PPG is described as being first low pass filtered and then
`
`peak detection is done. A “decision making” algorithm is used to
`
`determine heart rate, but no specific information is provided about this.
`
`Also included is an “adaptive windowing rules” component, but no
`
`specific information is provided about this. The application mentions
`
`that a motion sensor is used to reduce motion artifacts, but it does not
`
`explain how this is done; motion information is not used in any
`
`algorithm description. Thus, Hong does not teach or disclose the
`
`amended claims in either the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`D. Amano Patent U.S. 6081742
`40. The Amano patent discloses a device (finger mounted optical pulse
`
`sensor attached to a watch in communication with a computer) that can
`
`PAGE 15
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`measure the respiratory rate of the wearer. Motion sensors are used to
`
`remove body motion noise
`
`that prevents accurate respiratory
`
`measurement. The respiratory rate is calculated using the PPG sensor
`
`data. The time-based optical pulse signal is converted to a frequency
`
`spectrum via FFT and the time motion signal is also converted to
`
`frequency domain signals. Using peak frequency components based on
`
`frequency location, the acceptable pulse information can be obtained.
`
`However, there is no mention of adaptive filtering nor any pre-adaptive
`
`filtering. Thus, this patent does not teach or disclose the amended
`
`claims in either ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`E. Al-Ali Patent Application U.S. 2003/0181798
`41. The Al-Ali patent application discloses a communication adaptor that
`
`is intended to transmit and receive pulse and oxygen saturation data via
`
`wired or wireless method from a wearable such as a watch to a remote
`
`base station, termed the pulse oximetry monitor module (computer or
`
`another similar device). The goal is to communicate sensor information
`
`to the monitor which can then report the sensor information and/or
`
`generate waveforms that can be used to calculate oxygen saturation
`
`levels. While the signal processing component mentions a variety of
`
`processing methods, there is no motion sensing in this device, nor is
`
`PAGE 16
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`there discussion of how this would be made part of the adaptor. Thus,
`
`Al-Ali does not teach or disclose the amended claims in either the ‘269
`
`or ‘830 patents.
`
`F. Vetter Patent Application U.S. 2003/0065269
`42. The Vetter patent application describes a device and method for
`
`detecting pulse rate. The device is a wrist-based device, similar to a
`
`watch. It uses optical signals to obtain pulse information; at least two
`
`emitters and detectors are used for this. Motion detecting devices (for
`
`example, accelerometers) are used to obtain motion information. The
`
`motion information is used to obtain cleaner pulse information by
`
`subtracting motion from the optical signals. The algorithm states that
`
`motion artifacts are removed using non-linear model-based noise
`
`cancelling, but no details are provided. There is no discussion on pre-
`
`filtering of the signals prior to combination in the adaptive
`
`filtering/noise canceling stages. Therefore, this patent application does
`
`not teach or predict the entirety of the amended claims in the ‘269 or
`
`the ‘830 patents.
`
`G. Verjus Patent Application U.S. 2003/0233051
`43. The Verjus patent application describes an ear-based device for
`
`delivering amplified sound to the wearer and measuring heart rate. The
`
`PAGE 17
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`device could be headphones (such as for a “Walkman” or hearing aid.
`
`The heart rate measuring device is described as having multiple optical
`
`emitters and detectors as well as motion sensing devices
`
`(accelerometric devices). The accelerometric signals are filtered using
`
`an analog band-pass filter (0.5Hz to 10 Hz nominally). The
`
`combination of optical signals with motion signals is not described in
`
`this application. There are no details about the optical components
`
`except that there are multiple emitters and detectors, and that the
`
`preferred wavelengths to use are near infrared wavelengths. There is no
`
`presentation of data or justification that would allow one to understand
`
`whether the device is able to remove running motion artifacts from the
`
`heart rate signal. Therefore, this patent application does not teach or
`
`predict the amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`H. Fricke Patent Application U.S. 2009/0105556
`44. The Fricke patent application describes an apparatus for measuring
`
`physiological signals from the body, primarily heart rate, respiration
`
`rate and blood pressure. The device uses an optical emitter and detector
`
`to determine fluctuation in a level of blood in a capillary bed in the
`
`body. The algorithm for determining pulse rate uses a multiple step
`
`approach that includes an initial (0.5Hz - 5.5Hz) band pass filter, an
`
`PAGE 18
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`instantaneous frequency detector block, and the subsequent parallel
`
`analyses of the inter-beat interval (IBI) through various further filtering
`
`stages. The outputs from these parallel paths of processing can be stored
`
`for further analysis. Also included are algorithms for calculating
`
`respiration rate and blood pressure. However, no motion sensors are
`
`used in the device and no details about the optical components are
`
`provided. Additionally, the device is intended for in ear use. Therefore,
`
`this patent application does not teach or predict the amended claims of
`
`the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`I. Asada Article- “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable
`Photoplethysmographic Biosensors”
`45. The article discusses the development of a ring device for PPG
`
`measurements.
`
`Included
`
`is a discussion of using multiple
`
`photodetectors so that one can be used as a motion reference to remove
`
`motion artifacts from the other signal. The only wavelength discussion
`
`for the emitter suggests using a red (660nm) LED; there is no mention
`
`of using two different wavelength LEDs. In addition, the article states
`
`that the use of accelerometers for obtaining motion information is
`
`impractical for a ring-based system. The article illustrates that an
`
`adaptive filter could be included, but this is not described in the article,
`
`nor is there a discussion of an initial filtering for preconditioning or pre-
`
`PAGE 19
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`adaptive filtering. There is also no discussion of the device being
`
`capable of functioning properly while the wearer is running, as the
`
`discussion of the ring’ use centers on monitoring chronic conditions.
`
`Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this paper does not teach or
`
`predict the amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`J. Han Article – “Development of a wearable health monitoring device
`with motion artifact reduced algorithm”
`46. This conference paper discusses the use of a 4th order normalized least
`
`mean square (NLMS) filter to remove motion artifacts from a PPG
`
`signal obtained using a finger-based wireless PPG sensor. The results
`
`show that the filtering using the accelerometer as the motion reference
`
`improves the ability to obtain an accurate PPG signal. The wearable
`
`sensor is battery powered and has an accelerometer. Experiments are
`
`performed with one hand outfitted with a ring, but held stationary as a
`
`reference, and the other hand also outfitted with a ring, but waved at
`
`(moved periodically) different frequencies. The data from the rings are
`
`collected on a remote computer. The remote computer is used to store,
`
`analyze, and display the processed signals. The wearable has some
`
`signal filtering and amplification on-board, but the adaptive filtering is
`
`done on the remote computer, not on the ring. The experiments involve
`
`waving a hand, but at slow rates that do not replicate running rates.
`
`PAGE 20
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`Because the experiments do not accurately mimic foot movement or
`
`running motion, and because the adaptive filtering occurs off the ring
`
`(on the remote computer), this paper does not teach or predict the
`
`amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`K. Comtois Article – “A Comparative Evaluation of Adaptive Noise
`Cancellation Algorithms for Minimizing Motion Artifacts in a
`Forehead-Mounted Wearable Pulse Oximeter”
`47. This conference paper discusses the impact of different filter orders on
`
`the performance of noise cancelling algorithms for PPG signals that
`
`have motion artifact noise. The authors showed that processing motion-
`
`corrupted PPG signals by least mean squares (LMS) and recursive least
`
`squares (RLS) algorithms can be used to reduce SpO2 errors and heart
`
`rate errors during jogging. The custom forehead mounted PPG sensor
`
`records and stores PPG data; included on the forehead is a 3-axis
`
`accelerometer. The accelerometer data is also recorded and stored. Data
`
`is analyzed off-line; in other words, the forehead-mounted device
`
`collects the sensed data and transmits it to the remote computer for
`
`processing later. No processing (including any adaptive filtering) is
`
`done on the device while the wearer is being sensed. The three
`
`accelerometer signals are combined into one signal and used as the
`
`noise reference signal for the adaptive noise cancellation. This
`
`PAGE 21
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`processing was done using Matlab on the remote computer and the
`
`analysis shows that higher order filters performed better and that LMS
`
`(least mean squared) algorithm is faster than the recursive least squares
`
`method. The structure of the optical sensors not described. There is no
`
`discussion of any pre-conditioning or pre-adaptive
`
`filtering.
`
`Performance is improved using the LMS or RLS processing, but is
`
`worse while jogging as opposed to resting. It is not shown to be
`
`effective while running. For these reasons, this paper does not teach or
`
`predict the amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`L. Dekker Patent U.S. 670752
`48. The Dekker patent describes a method for determining respiration rate
`
`using a plethysmographic signal obtained using an optical method. The
`
`one or more emitter and photodetector pairs may use multiple
`
`wavelengths. The received “pleth” signals are used to determine
`
`oxygen saturation levels. The period of the heart beat can be determined
`
`using various means, and then this is used to determine respiration rate,
`
`based on the pulsatile nature of the pleth signal. This signal can be
`
`decomposed
`
`into various frequency components. It
`
`is
`
`these
`
`components, and in particular, the 0.3-0.5 Hz component that can be
`
`used for determining respiration rate without outside motion artifacts
`
`PAGE 22
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`corrupting the signal from other sources. No particular optical
`
`component designs are included. The patent does not claim to include
`
`any pre-conditioning or pre-adaptive filtering. The patent also does not
`
`claim to remove motion noise artifacts at all. For these reasons, this
`
`patent does not teach or predict the amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830
`
`patents.
`
`M. Bryars Patent U.S. 5807267
`49. The Bryars patent discloses a watch-type device for measuring heart
`
`rate and motion information with sensor(s) positioned in the watch strap
`
`over the radial artery. The sensor consists of at least two piezoelectric
`
`devices and optical devices (for PPG measurements). One piezo sensors
`
`measures pulse+everything, and the other measures everything except
`
`the pulse. These two signals are subtracted to obtain the pulse. The LED
`
`is an IR LED which may be pulsed to get signals with and without LED
`
`on to remove background light noise. Thus, the device is described to
`
`use two methods of finding pulse information. The patent also
`
`discussed using FFTs to filter signals remove noise from artifacts.
`
`However, the patent does not discuss combining the piezo method and
`
`optical method in any way. There is no discussion about the optical
`
`component structure. Finally, there is no discussion of adaptive filtering
`
`PAGE 23
`
`IPR2017-00317
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2110 - PAGE 24
`
`
`
`used in processing the any signals. For these reasons, this patent does
`
`not teach or predict the amended claims of the ‘269 or ‘830 patents.
`
`N. Kosuda Patent Application U.S. 2004/0186387
`50. The Kosuda patent application discloses a device and method for
`
`measuring a pulse and removing body motion noise. The application
`
`discloses combining 3-axis accelerometer outputs with the pulse sensor
`
`output via adaptive filtering to improve pulse detection. Motion
`
`information is used to generate filter coefficients for the adaptive
`
`filtering
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
