`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLE INC. and FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-003181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`__________________
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S SUR-REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01554 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. opposed Valencell’s (“PO”) Conditional Motion to
`
`Amend (“MTA”) because substitute claims 12-21 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 103. PO’s Reply in Support of its Conditional MTA
`
`(“PO MTA Reply”) provides unpersuasive arguments that misrepresent Asada,
`
`Swedlow, Goodman, and Gupta’s teachings to argue that a POSA would not be
`
`motivated to combine these references. Thus, as demonstrated in Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition (“Pet’r Oppo.”), the Board should deny the MTA.
`
`II.
`
`Substitute Claims 12-21 Lack Written Description Support
`
`Petitioner demonstrated in its Opposition that there was no written
`
`description support in the ’269 patent for a band-pass filter that, itself, reduces
`
`motion artifacts by removing frequency bands from signals produced by a motion
`
`sensor, as recited in substitute claim 12. (Pet’r Oppo., 1-2.) PO argues that
`
`Petitioner and its expert misunderstood the claim, and that the claim as properly
`
`understood is supported by the specification. (PO MTA Reply, 1.) However, PO’s
`
`arguments further muddy the waters, as PO states that “reduction of motion
`
`artifacts is done, in part, by the processor producing pre-conditioned signals
`
`through the removal of frequency bands outside the range of interest.” (Id., 2.) PO
`
`goes on to state that “[p]re-conditioned signals are utilized by the processor to
`
`reduce motion artifacts and those pre-conditioned signals are configured by using
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`band-pass filters on the signals.” (Id.) Thus, it is unclear whether PO is arguing that
`
`the processor is removing frequency bands outside the range of interest, the band-
`
`pass filters are removing frequency bands outside the range of interest, or both are
`
`removing frequency bands. In any case, PO’s argument fails because the claim is
`
`clear that the band-pass filter is removing frequency bands from a signal, and that
`
`signal must be produced by a motion sensor. As Petitioner demonstrated in its
`
`Opposition, this is not supported by the ’269 patent and therefore claim 12 and all
`
`of its dependent claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Furthermore, to the extent that PO now explains how a portion of the ’269
`
`patent allegedly provides written description support, this is too little, too late. PO
`
`had the burden to demonstrate written description support in its MTA. Indeed,
`
`PO’s expert testified that for his declaration supporting PO’s MTA, he was not
`
`asked to provide an opinion as to whether this feature–or any feature for that
`
`matter–had written description support. (APL1100, 183:17-24 (“I don’t believe I
`
`was asked to do that.”).)
`
`III. Substitute Claims 12-21 are Indefinite
`PO contends that substitute claim 12 states that the goal of the processor is
`
`to extract physiological and motion-related information and that the same
`
`information is parsed into the output data. PO therefore alleges that there is no
`
`ambiguity as to the meaning of physiological and motion-related information in
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`step (iii) of claim 12. (PO MTA Reply, 2-3.)
`
`However, claim 12 does not state that the “same” physiological and motion-
`
`related information is used in step (i) and step (iii). The phrase “motion-related and
`
`physiological information” in step (iii) is not preceded by any indication, such as
`
`“the” or “the same,” that would indicate that the “motion-related and physiological
`
`information” of step (iii) is the same as that of step (i). Rather, the “motion-related
`
`and physiological information” of step (iii) could be the same as in step (i), or it
`
`could be different. For example, the claim includes other types of “motion-related
`
`and physiological information,” such as the “signals” of step (i), the “pre-
`
`conditioned signals” of step (ii), the “motion artifacts” of step (ii), and
`
`“information” of step (iii). Thus, “motion-related and physiological information” in
`
`step (iii) could be referring to any of these, or some other form of motion-related
`
`and physiological information not even mentioned in the claim. Accordingly, a
`
`POSA would not understand the scope of the claim and so the claim is indefinite.
`
`IV. A POSA Would Be Motivated to Combine Asada and Swedlow
`PO alleges that there would be no motivation to combine Asada and
`
`Swedlow. (PO MTA Reply, 5-7.) PO is wrong. PO’s flawed position is premised
`
`on the allegation that “NO WHERE in Asada is a problem with disconnection or
`
`comfort discussed.” (PO MTA Reply, 6 (emphasis original).) Yet Asada
`
`recognizes that comfort of its ring sensor is an important design consideration.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`(Pet’r Oppo., 4 (citing APL1005, pp. 29-30, 36).) Given this recognition of
`
`comfort as a design consideration, a POSA would have been motivated to look for
`
`approaches to improve comfort and would have been motivated to combine Asada
`
`and Swedlow, as explained in Petitioner’s Opposition. (Pet’r Oppo., 4.) Petitioner
`
`also identified that a POSA would combine Asada and Swedlow to increase
`
`reliability and decrease cost–motivations that PO’s reply did not address. (Id.)
`
`PO also alleges that “NEITHER Asada or Swedlow discuss ‘etched wires’
`
`nor use this phrase” to support its view that a POSA would not be motivated to
`
`combine Asada and Swedlow. (PO MTA Reply, 6 (emphasis original).) However,
`
`the Opposition demonstrated that Swedlow uses a flexible substrate and explained
`
`the simplicity of using etched wires to carry electrical signals for the photodetector
`
`and LEDs. (Pet’r Oppo., 4.) Whether the specific phrase “etched wires” occurs
`
`within Asada or Swedlow is of no import. A POSA would understand that “etched
`
`wires” are compatible with the flexible substrate of Swedlow, as corroborated by
`
`Awazu. (Id.)
`
`V. A POSA Would Be Motivated to Combine Asada and Gupta
`PO argues that a POSA would not combine Asada and Gupta because
`
`“Asada expressly teaches away from a device such as Gupta and teaches away
`
`from the specific Gupta impact sensor.” (PO MTA Reply, 9 (emphasis original).)
`
`PO has the burden of production to prove a teaching away. See RICOH Co. v.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). PO
`
`has not met this burden.
`
`PO provides no evidence that Asada disparages the devices disclosed by
`
`Gupta. PO merely offers an unsupported statement by its expert that Asada teaches
`
`away. This is not enough to show a teaching away. The Federal Circuit has stated:
`
`“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
`
`teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not
`
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391
`
`F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`More importantly, the Opposition was not seeking to combine the elements
`
`of Gupta with Asada, but rather to process the pulse-signal and motion signal in
`
`Asada to detect a patient’s heart rate and impacts indicating that the patient has
`
`fallen over, as taught by Gupta. (Pet’r Oppo., 6-7.) Thus, PO’s argument misses the
`
`mark, and a POSA would be motivated to combine Asada and Gupta.
`
`VI. A POSA Would Be Motivated to Combine Asada and Goodman
`PO alleges that a POSA would not combine Goodman with Asada because
`
`Goodman’s stated purpose is to prevent motion artifacts. (PO MTA Reply, 10-11.)
`
`PO’s analysis is backwards. It is because Goodman is concerned with preventing
`
`motion artifacts that a POSA reviewing Goodman would be led to other references,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`such as Asada, that are also concerned with preventing motion artifacts. (Pet’r
`
`Oppo., 14; APL1103, ¶70.) Asada focuses on concerns with motion artifacts and
`
`how to reduce those artifacts, including devoting an entire section “Techniques for
`
`Reduced Motion Artifacts” that discusses approaches to motion artifact reduction
`
`that are applicable to all types of sensors and not constrained by the physical
`
`characteristics of the Asada prototypes. (APL1005, 30-31.)
`
`PO seeks to bolster its position by arguing that “Goodman does not exhibit
`
`any problems due to motion.” (PO MTA Reply, 11.) This statement is incorrect
`
`and misleading. There are many forms of motion artifacts, and PO’s statement only
`
`addresses one type of artifact associated with a particular embodiment of
`
`Goodman. Goodman was primarily focused on one form of motion artifact
`
`attributable to relative motion of the sensor to the body part that is affixed to. In
`
`one embodiment, where an adhesive is used to fasten the sensor to a body part,
`
`Goodman contends that motion artifacts attributable to relative motion of the
`
`sensor to the body part that it is affixed to are eliminated. (APL1007, 5:30-47.)
`
`However, non-adhesive embodiments are also discussed, including using gauze to
`
`hold the sensor to a baby’s hand, that would not remove all motion artifacts
`
`attributable to relative motion of the sensor to the body part. (APL1007, 4:55-58,
`
`5:48-55.) Even Valencell’s expert reluctantly recognized that there are other types
`
`of motion artifacts, such as those caused by patient motion: “if there are other
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`motion artifacts that it [Goodman sensor] is not intended for, we don’t know what
`
`its result will be.” (APL1100, 139:19-140:3.) Thus, a POSA reading Goodman
`
`would continue to recognize the need to reduce motion artifacts and look to
`
`references such as Asada to address this concern.
`
`PO attempts to augment its argument by stating that Goodman is intended
`
`for patients who are primarily bed-ridden. (PO MTA Reply, 11.) PO contends that
`
`a POSA would not combine Goodman with Asada to solve motion problems for a
`
`device that is intended for people with little motion. (Id.) By PO’s own admission,
`
`the patients would have some movement. PO notes that Goodman’s sensors are for
`
`patients who are “primarily bed-ridden,” thus confessing there would be motion
`
`when they are not bed-ridden. Additionally, PO acknowledged that there would be
`
`“little motion.” (Id.) Thus, some motion and motion artifacts would result.
`
` Furthermore, even a bed-ridden patient would have motion of the body part
`
`with the Goodman sensor attached, for example, hand movement for eating or
`
`therapy. Additionally, patients may be moved for different treatment or tests,
`
`which would also result in patient motion. They also may be moved simply to
`
`change bedding. Thus, because Goodman is concerned with motion artifacts and
`
`not all motion artifacts are eliminated, a POSA would be motivated to apply other
`
`motion artifact removal techniques, such as those disclosed by Asada, to the
`
`devices of Goodman to improve performance and measurement quality.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Specht/
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Registration No. 54,463
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Date: January 12, 2018
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above-
`
`captioned PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND was served electronically
`
`via email in its entirety on January 12, 2018 on the following:
`
`Justin B. Kimble (Lead Counsel)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (Back-up Counsel)
`Nicholas C. Kliewer (Back-up Counsel)
`T. William Kennedy (Back-up Counsel)
`Jonathan H. Rastegar (Back-up Counsel)
`Brian P. Herrmann (Back-up Counsel)
`Marcus Benavides (Back-up Counsel)
`R. Scott Rhoades (Back-up Counsel)
`Sanford E. Warren, Jr. (Back-up Counsel)
`
`Harper Batts (Counsel for Fitbit, Inc.)
`Jeremy Taylor (Counsel for Fitbit, Inc.)
`
`
`
`JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`bkennedy@bcpc-law.com
`jrastegar@bcpc-law.com
`bherrmann@bcpc-law.com
`mbenavides@bcpc-law.com
`srhoades@wriplaw.com
`swarren@wriplaw.com
`
`harper.batts@bakerbotts.com
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`dlfitbit-valencell@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Michael D. Specht/
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Registration No. 54,463
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 12, 2018
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`