Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Michael D. Specht
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ..................................................... 2
`III. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................................. 4
`IV.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ......................................... 4
`A.
`Citation of Prior Art ................................................................................ 4
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge ....................................................... 6
`C.
`The Board should institute both petitions against the ’830 patent
`claims because doing so would not be unduly burdensome. .................. 6
`The ’830 Patent .................................................................................................. 8
`A. Overview of the ’830 Patent .................................................................... 8
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History ....................................................11
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .........................................................11
`D.
`Claim Construction................................................................................12
`1. “cladding material” (claims 1 and 11) .......................................................13
`2. “near” (claims 1 and 11) ............................................................................14
`VI. Overview of the Applied References .............................................................. 14
`A. Goodman ...............................................................................................15
`B. Hicks ......................................................................................................16
`C. Asada .....................................................................................................18
`D. Hannula..................................................................................................21
`E.
`Delonzor ................................................................................................23
`VII. Overview of the Grounds ................................................................................ 24
`VIII. Ground 1: Goodman Renders Claims 1-4 and 11-14 Obvious ....................... 25
`A. Goodman renders independent claim 1 obvious. ..................................25
`1. Goodman discloses “[a] monitoring device configured to be attached to the
`body of a subject” [1P]. .............................................................................25
`2. Goodman discloses “an outer layer and an inner layer secured together”
`[1.1]. ...........................................................................................................26
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`3. Goodman discloses “the inner layer comprising light transmissive material,
`and having inner and outer surfaces” [1.2]. ...............................................27
`4. Goodman discloses “a base secured to at least one of the outer and inner
`layers and comprising at least one optical emitter and at least one optical
`detector” [1.3]. ...........................................................................................27
`5. Goodman discloses “a layer of cladding material near the outer surface of
`the inner layer” [1.4]. .................................................................................28
`6. Goodman discloses “at least one window formed in the layer of cladding
`material that serves as a light-guiding interface to the body of the subject”
`[1.5]. ...........................................................................................................29
`7. Goodman discloses “wherein the light transmissive material is in optical
`communication with the at least one optical emitter and the at least one
`optical detector, wherein the light transmissive material is configured to
`deliver light from the at least one optical emitter to the body of the subject
`along a first direction and to collect light from the body of the subject and
`deliver the collected light in a second direction to the at least one optical
`detector, wherein the first and second directions are substantially parallel”
`[1.6]. ...........................................................................................................30
`B. Goodman renders independent claim 11 obvious. ................................33
`1. Goodman discloses “[a] monitoring device configured to be attached to the
`body of a subject” [11.P]. ..........................................................................33
`2. Goodman discloses “a first layer comprising light transmissive material, the
`first layer having inner and outer surfaces” [11.1]. ...................................34
`3. Goodman discloses “a base secured to the first layer and comprising at least
`one optical emitter and at least one optical detector” [11.2]. ....................35
`4. Goodman discloses “a layer of cladding material near the inner and outer
`surfaces of the first layer” [11.3]. ..............................................................36
`5. Goodman discloses “at least one window formed in the layer of cladding
`material that serves as a light-guiding interface to the body of the subject”
`[11.4]. .........................................................................................................37
`6. Goodman discloses “wherein the light transmissive material is in optical
`communication with the at least one optical emitter and the at least one
`optical detector, and is configured to deliver light from the at least one
`optical emitter to the body of the subject along a first direction and to
`collect light from the body of the subject and deliver the collected light in a
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`B.
`
`second direction to the at least one optical detector, wherein the first and
`second directions are substantially parallel” [11.5]. ..................................38
`C. Goodman renders claims 2 and 12 obvious. .........................................40
`D. Goodman renders claims 3 and 13 obvious. .........................................41
`E.
`Goodman renders claims 4 and 14 obvious. .........................................42
`IX. Ground 2: The Combination of Goodman and Hicks Renders Claims 5
`and 15 Obvious ................................................................................................ 43
`A. Motivation for the Combination of Goodman and Hicks .....................43
`B.
`The combination of Goodman and Hicks render claims 5 and 15
`obvious. .................................................................................................44
`X. Ground 3: The Combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada Renders
`Claims 6 and 16 Obvious ................................................................................. 45
`A. Motivation for the Combination of Goodman, Hannula, and
`Asada .....................................................................................................45
`The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada renders
`claims 6 and 16 obvious. .......................................................................49
`1. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada teaches or suggests “a
`light reflective material on at least a portion of one or both of the inner and
`outer surfaces of the [inner / first] layer” [6.1 / 16.1]. ...............................49
`2. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada discloses that “the at
`least one optical detector comprises first and second optical detectors” [6.2
`/ 16.2]. ........................................................................................................50
`3. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada discloses “a signal
`processor” [6.3 / 16.3]. ..............................................................................50
`4. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada discloses that “at least a
`portion of light reflected by the light reflective material and detected by the
`second optical detector is processed by the signal processor as a motion
`noise reference for attenuating motion noise from signals produced by the
`first optical detector” [6.4 / 16.4]...............................................................51
`XI. Ground 4: The Combination of Goodman and Asada Renders Claims 8,
`9, 18 and 19 Obvious ....................................................................................... 53
`A. Motivation for the Combination of Goodman and Asada.....................53
`B.
`The combination of Goodman and Asada renders claims 8 and
`18 obvious. ............................................................................................54
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The combination of Goodman and Asada renders claims 9 and
`19 obvious. ............................................................................................54
`XII. Ground 5: The Combination of Goodman and Delonzor Renders Claims
`10 and 20 Obvious ........................................................................................... 56
`A. Motivation for the Combination of Goodman and Delonzor ................56
`B.
`The combination of Goodman and Delonzor discloses that “the
`at least one window comprises at least two windows” [10.1 /
`20.1]. ......................................................................................................57
`The combination of Goodman and Delonzor discloses “light
`blocking material positioned between the at least one optical
`emitter and the at least one optical detector such that the at least
`one optical emitter and the at least one optical detector are not in
`direct optical communication with each other” [10.2 /20.2].................58
`XIII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 60
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`C.
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00535 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2014) .............................................................. 7
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ........................................................ 6, 7
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................ 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Apple (APL)
`Ex. No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830 to LeBoeuf et al. titled “Wearable
`Light-Guiding Devices for Physiological Monitoring,” issued
`March 24, 2015
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Brian W. Anthony in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Brian W. Anthony
`Asada, H. et al. “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable
`Photoplethysmographic Biosensors,” IEEE Engineering in
`Medicine and Biology Magazine, May/June 2003; pp. 28-40
`U.S. Patent No. 5,226,417 to Swedlow et al. titled “Apparatus
`for the Detection of Motion Transients,” issued July 13, 1993
`U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 to Goodman et al. titled “Sensor
`Having Cutaneous Conformance,” issued May 16, 1989
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,061 to Hicks et al. titled “Disposable
`Oximetry Sensor,” issued June 1, 2004
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,986 to Hannula et al. titled “Non-
`Adhesive Oximeter Sensor for Sensitive Skin,” issued March
`13, 2007
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,841 to Delonzor et al. titled “Shunt
`Barrier in Pulse Oximeter Sensor,” issued August 25, 1998
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123763 to Al-
`Ali et al. titled “Optical Sensor Including Disposable and
`Reusable Elements,” published May 31, 2007
`Excerpt from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition, 2008; p. 828
`Mendelson, Y. et al., “Skin Reflectance Pulse Oximetry: In
`Vivo Measurements from the Forearm and Calf,” Journal of
`Clinical Monitoring, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1991; pp. 7-12
`Konig, V. et al., “Reflectance Pulse Oximetry – Principles and
`Obstetric Application in the Zurich System,” Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring and Computing, Vol. 14, No. 6, August 1998; pp.
`403-412
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple (APL)
`Ex. No.
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`Description
`Mendelson, Y. et al. “A Wearable Reflectance Pulse Oximeter
`for Remote Physiological Monitoring,” Proceedings of the 28th
`IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, New York City,
`New York, August 30-September 3, 2006; pp. 912-915
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,562 to Kimura et al. titled “Vital Signal
`Detecting Apparatus,” issued August 19, 2003
`Tremper, K. et al., “Pulse Oximetry,” Medical Intelligence
`Article, Anesthesiology, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 1989; pp. 98-
`108
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of Asada, H. et al.
`“Mobile Monitoring with Wearable Photoplethysmographic
`Biosensors,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
`Magazine, May/June 2003; pp. 28-40 (APL1005)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`- vii -
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,989,830 to LeBoeuf et al. (“the ʼ830 patent”). Apple
`
`demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all challenged claims
`
`of the ’830 patent1 are unpatentable.
`
`For decades prior to the ’830 patent, artisans had developed and continued
`
`to improve sensor devices commonly known as non-invasive optical biosensors
`
`for optically detecting and measuring physiological information, such as blood
`
`oxygen saturation and heart rate. (Anthony Decl., ¶27.) These sensors came in a
`
`variety of form-factors and included pulse oximeters, which were well-known by
`
`the 1970s. (Id. at ¶28.) These sensors require only a few opto-electronic
`
`components: a light source (often red or near infrared) to illuminate the tissue
`
`(commonly at the finger, nose, ear, or wrist) and a photodetector to measure the
`
`variations in light intensity associated with changes in blood volume. (Id. at ¶¶29-
`
`31.) Some employed the well-known photoplethysmography (PPG) technique
`
`described in the ’830 patent. (Id. at ¶¶32-34.) A simple, appropriately programmed
`
`signal processor can extract heart rate and a variety of other physiological
`
`parameters. (Id. at ¶29.)
`
`
`1 The ’830 patent is provided as APL1001.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`It has long been known that PPG measurements were sensitive to patient
`
`and/or device-tissue movement artifacts. (Id. at ¶35.) Numerous motion
`
`cancellation techniques have been developed, including the incorporation of
`
`sensors that could provide a reference signal to the signal processor to cancel the
`
`motion contribution in the sensed PPG signal. (Id. at ¶36.)
`
`In recent decades, the desire for small, reliable, low-cost and simple-to-use,
`
`non-invasive (cardiovascular) assessment techniques were key factors that have
`
`propelled the use of PPG. (Id. at ¶37.) Developments in semiconductor technology
`
`(e.g., light emitting diodes (LED), photodiodes, and phototransistors) have made
`
`considerable improvements in the size, sensitivity, reliability and reproducibility
`
`of PPG devices. (Id. at ¶38.) As this technology became smaller and more robust,
`
`it was integrated into wireless, wearable technology such as rings, wristwatches,
`
`and earphones. (Id.)
`
`The claims of the ’830 patent recite nothing more than what was already
`
`known in the prior art. (Anthony Decl., ¶45.) Accordingly, Apple respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 of the ’830 patent.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST: The real party-in-interest is Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ’830 patent is the subject of the following civil
`
`actions: Valencell, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00001 (E.D.N.C.); and
`
`Valencell, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00002 (E.D.N.C.).
`
`Apple is concurrently filing an inter partes review petition challenging
`
`claims of United States Patent No. 8,886,269 (“the ’269 Patent”), which is the
`
`parent to the ’830 patent and an additional inter partes review petition challenging
`
`claims of the ’830 patent. The ’269 patent is also at issue in the above-listed civil
`
`actions.
`
`The ’830 patent claims the benefit of U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,301,696 claims the benefit of the ’830 patent.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Michael D. Specht (Reg. No. 54,463) as its lead
`
`counsel, Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179) as its back-up counsel, and
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons (Reg. No. 65,367) as its additional back-up counsel, all at
`
`the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
`
`Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-2600, and
`
`facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com, holoubek-PTAB@skgf.com,
`
`jfitzsimmons-PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ830 patent is available for inter
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`partes review. Apple further certifies that it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee
`
`of the ’830 patent, Valencell, Inc., filed a complaint against Apple alleging
`
`infringement of the ’830 patent on January 4, 2016. The present Petition is being
`
`filed within one year of service of Apple.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`A. Citation of Prior Art
`The ’830 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269, filed on
`
`February 19, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111, filed on
`
`January 21, 2010, and further claims priority to Provisional Application Nos.:
`
`61/274,191, filed on August 14, 2009; 61/212,444, filed on April 13, 2009;
`
`61/208,567, filed on February 25, 2009; and 61/208,574, filed on February 25,
`
`2009.2 The following prior art documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability
`
`were published prior to the earliest possible priority date, February 25, 2009.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 to Goodman, R. et al. titled “Sensor Having
`
`Cutaneous Conformance,” provided as APL1007 (“Goodman”), is prior art under
`
`2 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’830 patent is entitled to priority benefit
`
`of any of these provisional applications.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on May 16, 1989,
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the ’830 patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,061 to Hicks et al., titled “Disposable Oximetry
`
`Sensor” provided as APL1008 (“Hicks”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on June 1, 2004, more than one year
`
`before the earliest possible priority date of the ’830 patent.
`
`Asada, H. et al. “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable Photoplethysmographic
`
`Biosensors” provided as APL1005 (“Asada”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published by IEEE in May-June 2003 and
`
`publicly available no later than the last day of July 2003, more than one year
`
`before the ’830 patent’s earliest possible priority date. (APL1018.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,986 to Hannula et al., titled “Non-Adhesive
`
`Oximeter Sensor for Sensitive Skin” provided as APL1009 (“Hannula”), is prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on
`
`March 13, 2007, more than one year before the ’830 patent’s earliest possible
`
`priority date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,841 to Delonzor et al., titled “Shunt Barrier in Pulse
`
`Oximeter Sensor” provided as APL1010 (“Delonzor”), is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on August 25, 1998, more
`
`than one year before the ’830 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Goodman
`
`§ 103
`
`1-4, 11-14
`
`Goodman, Hicks
`
`§ 103
`
`5, 15
`
`Goodman, Hannula, Asada
`
`§ 103
`
`6, 16
`
`Goodman, Asada
`
`§ 103
`
`8, 9, 18, 19
`
`Goodman, Delonzor
`
`§ 103
`
`10, 20
`
`
`
`C. The Board should institute both petitions against the ’830 patent
`claims because doing so would not be unduly burdensome.
`
`Apple is concurrently filing this Petition with another petition requesting
`
`inter partes review of the same claims of the ’830 patent. Apple recognizes that the
`
`Board may use its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to institute trial only on
`
`certain grounds. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, p. 2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012). The Board typically
`
`exercises its discretion when numerous proposed grounds are asserted against the
`
`same claims. For example, the Board did so where all 31 claims of a patent were
`
`challenged under 49 total grounds over multiple petitions. See e.g., Canon Inc. v.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00535, Paper 9, pp. 19-20 (P.T.A.B. Sept.
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`24, 2014). Here, only eighteen claims are presented for inter partes review in this
`
`Petition and those same claims are presented in the companion petition. Across the
`
`two petitions, there are only eight grounds, with each claim challenged under just
`
`one distinct ground in each petition. The two petitions together rely on only six
`
`prior art references to establish unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`In view of the reasonable number of challenged claims and grounds
`
`presented, Apple also points out that the Board may institute inter partes review on
`
`any and all grounds where the petitioner “articulate[s] relative strengths and
`
`weaknesses between references.” Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 6.
`
`Apple does so here.
`
`In this Petition, the grounds are based on Goodman under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Goodman discloses a non-invasive optical biosensor and teaches or suggests all the
`
`basic components of the invention in the independent claims. However, a greater
`
`number of dependent claims require combining Goodman with another reference
`
`to demonstrate obviousness. This is because Goodman’s earlier device does not
`
`disclose elements, for example, an on-board signal processor and transmitter, that
`
`became more prevalent after Goodman yet before the earliest priority date of the
`
`’830 patent. Thus, the Goodman grounds may arguably be seen as weaker. In
`
`comparison, the Haahr reference presented as the primary reference in the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`companion petition teaches or suggests each independent claim element and many
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`of the dependent claim elements. Yet Haahr is not a patent or patent application
`
`publication and thus is not self-authenticating; so, the grounds based on Haahr may
`
`arguably be seen as weaker.
`
`Apple would be prejudiced should the Board institute trial for only one
`
`petition. If the Board institutes trial for only one petition, Apple may be precluded
`
`from asserting its best challenge against claims that are clearly unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, the totality of circumstances here counsels that, in the interest
`
`of justice, the Board should institute trial for the challenged claim based on both
`
`petitions.
`
`V. The ’830 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’830 Patent
`The ’830 patent is primarily directed to embodiments of headset and earbud
`
`devices, shown in Figures 1–21. The devices can include physiological sensors to
`
`measure, for example, heart rate, pulse rate, VO2, etc. (APL1001, 4:33-67.) For
`
`example, the sensors can be photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors for measuring
`
`blood flow properties such as blood oxygen level. (Id. at 3:67-4:5; Anthony Decl.,
`
`¶¶39-43.)
`
`The ’830 patent states that devices can be shaped for use with other body
`
`parts, for example, “a digit, finger, toe, limb, around the nose or earlobe, or the
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`like,” or in the form of “a patch, such as a bandage that sticks on a person’s body.”
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`(Id. at 11:53-58.) These embodiments are shown in Figures 22A, 22B, and 23.
`
`
`
`
`
`APL1001, Figures 22A, 22B, and 23, Annotated (Anthony Decl., ¶40)
`
`The ’830 patent claims are specifically directed to devices having multiple
`
`layers, as shown in Figures 22B and 23. Figure 22B is essentially the “patch” or
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`“bandage” type of sensor shown in Figure 23, but wrapped into a form factor that
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`can be placed around a finger. (Anthony Decl., ¶41.)
`
`The Figure 23 embodiment is referred to as a bandage or “band-aid.”
`
`(APL1001, 29:16-19.) The bandage has an outer layer that “may be formed from
`
`virtually any type of material.” (Id. at 29:21-23.) An inner layer includes “light
`
`transmissive material,” such as silicone, although “various types of light
`
`transmissive materials may be utilized without limitation.” (Id. at 29:38-45.) A
`
`base is secured to the inner and outer layers to provide support to the optical
`
`emitter and optical detector(s). (Id. at 29:31-37.) An adhesive can be used to
`
`removably attach the device to the body of the subject being monitored. (Id. at
`
`30:13-19; Anthony Decl., ¶42.)
`
`A layer of “cladding material” can be “applied to (or near)” the outer surface
`
`and the inner surface of the inner body portion. (Id. at 29:46-50.) The outer body
`
`portion can serve as the cladding layer. (Id. at 29:57-59.) The cladding material can
`
`have one or more windows so that light can pass from the emitter into the body and
`
`from the body to the detector. (Id. at 29:60-30:1.) In some embodiments, multiple
`
`emitters and/or multiple detectors can be used to assist in detecting motion
`
`artifacts, for example, from finger motion. (Id. at 30:5-13; Anthony Decl., ¶43.)
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
` On September 12, 2014, Valencell filed the application that became the
`
`’830 patent as a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/184,364 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269), which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/691,388 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111). In a non-final
`
`Office Action dated November 12, 2014, the Office rejected all pending claims
`
`based on multiple grounds of obviousness-type double patenting. (APL1002, pp.
`
`108-113.) On November 18, 2014, Valencell filed Terminal Disclaimers to all of
`
`the patents and applications asserted by the Office. (Id. at 134-136.) On January
`
`20, 2015, Valencell submitted an Information Disclosure Statement listing 266
`
`documents. (Id. at 143-150.) The Office issued a Notice of Allowance on February
`
`2, 2015–less than five months after the filing date. (Id. at 482-488.)
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’830 patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) at the relevant time would have had 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 least two
`
`years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological
`
`monitoring devices such as non-invasive optical biosensors. (Anthony Decl., ¶¶25-
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`26.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also been familiar with, for
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`example, optical system design and signal processing. (Id.)
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), the challenged claims must be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretations (“BRI”) in light of the specification
`
`of the ’830 patent. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-
`
`2146 (2016). Terms in need of construction are discussed below.3 The Board
`
`should adopt Apple’s constructions because they are consistent with the
`
`specification and how the terms would have been understood by a POSA.
`
`(Anthony Decl., ¶46.)
`
`Claim Term
`“cladding material”
`
`“near”
`
`Construction
`“a material that blocks or reflects at
`least some light”
`“within a short distance”
`
`
`3 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum
`
`where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed claim
`
`constructions do not constitute an admission that the claims are valid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, and Apple reserves the right to challenge the validity of the claims
`
`under § 112 in other venues.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`
`
`
` “cladding material” (claims 1 and 11)
`1.
`The ’830 patent does not expressly define “cladding material,” but rather
`
`provides numerous examples. (Anthony Decl., ¶47). Referring to Figure 23, the
`
`’830 patent describes that “[a] lay