throbber
Filed on behalf of Valencell, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`T. William Kennedy (bkennedy@bcpc-law.com)
`Jonathan H. Rastegar (jrastegar@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,886,2691
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF REPLY DECLARANT BRIAN W. ANTHONY
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`1 This proceeding is joined with IPR2017-01554.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`I. OBSERVATIONS
`
`Patent Owner submits the following observations on the December 20, 2017,
`
`cross-examination of Petitioner’s reply declarant, Dr. Brian W. Anthony. The
`
`transcript of Dr. Anthony’s December 20, 2017, deposition filed as Ex. 2150 (“Dec.
`
`20 Tr.”), which includes testimony for both IPR2017-00317 and IPR2017-00318.
`
`Observation 1:
`
`
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 173, line 6 through page 174, line 20, Dr. Anthony
`
`testified as follows:
`
`Q. So in your opinion what is element 7? Is it microcomputer? Is it a
`
`CPU? Is it a signal processor? Because you've labeled it as all three of
`
`those things.
`
`A. It's performing processing. So those are largely interchangeable.
`
`Said a processing unit, microprocessor, a signal processor -- a CPU can
`
`process signals. A microprocessor can process signals. I was, I guess,
`
`maybe a little – using those -- the broader terms of them being able to
`
`process signals.
`
`Q. And it's still your opinion that that element 7 is not Velcro.
`
`A. As I labeled here, it's a microcomputer, CPU, signal processor.
`
`Q. What is element 1 in Figure 11?
`
`A. Drawing the direct analog I had with Swedlow, could be the
`
`adhesive connecting it to the rest of the base, representative of the rest
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`of the base to which the -- the rest of the ring to which this is coming
`
`from. 2
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Anthony’s credibility relating to his identification
`
`of the components of Fig. 11 of Asada at pages 13-16 of the -318 Reply. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows Dr. Asada’s inconsistent identification of the
`
`elements of Fig. 11; moreover, in his prior deposition, Dr. Anthony identified
`
`element 1 as “biocompatible elastic material” instead of an “adhesive” as he called
`
`it in this deposition. -318 IPR, Ex. 2010 at 133:10-12.
`
`Observation 2:
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 163, lines 9-19, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. We talked a lot in your prior deposition about the identification -- or
`
`lack thereof -- of the enumerated elements in Figure 11.
`
`Do you remember that?
`
`A. I do.
`
`Q. And then after your deposition, after your two depositions in
`
`September, did you communicate with Doctor Asada to try to determine
`
`what the components in Figure 11 are?
`
`A. I did not. I felt I knew what the components were as I had labeled
`
`them here.
`
`
`2 For brevity and clarity, objections from counsel have been omitted, without
`
`notation, from the deposition excerpts in this paper.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`This testimony is relevant to show Petitioner’s and Dr. Anthony’s credibility relating
`
`to their identification of the components of Fig. 11 of Asada at pages 13-16 of the
`
`-318 Reply. This testimony is relevant because it shows Dr. Anthony’s willful
`
`blindness to the facts of Asada’s Fig. 11, despite having those facts readily available
`
`to him.
`
`Observation 3:
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 115, line 8 through page 118, line 5, Dr. Anthony
`
`testified as follows:
`
`Q. And Doctor Asada is in the same department with you at MIT;
`
`correct?
`
`A. Correct. He's in the department of mechanical engineering, which is
`
`one of the departments I'm appointed in.
`
`Q. Did you walk down to Doctor Asada's office and ask him why a
`
`tethered version of prototype B was required?
`
`A. I did not, and I believe you asked that in my earlier deposition. I
`
`didn't feel a person skilled in the art would need to go talk to Doctor
`
`Asada to understand his paper here.
`
`Q. Well, you're -- you're just guessing at a reason why, and the actual
`
`source of the information is a colleague of -- of yours, and you just
`
`decided not to go ask him for that information?
`
`A. I was asked to form my own opinion. I didn't feel it was necessary.
`
`My -- what a person skilled in the art would have understood from this
`
`was as covered in here.
`
`***
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`
`
`
`
`Q. So after your deposition – since September you didn't take the
`
`opportunity to go speak to Doctor Asada about this reference in
`
`figuring out.
`
`A. I -- I have not.
`
`Q. And why is that?
`
`A. Didn't feel it was necessary.
`
`Q. And -- and you testified in your prior depositions that you introduced
`
`Apple's counsel to Doctor Asada via email; correct?
`
`A. That was correct.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s attempt to discredit Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the wireless device of Asada was prohibited from use in a hospital
`
`environment at page 27 of the -317 Reply and page 28 of the -318 Reply. 3 This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows Dr. Anthony’s willful blindness to the actual
`
`facts of Asada, and because it shows that Petitioner’s counsel had access to the facts
`
`of Asada and chose not to supply those facts in this proceeding and instead relied on
`
`assumptions from Dr. Anthony.
`
`Observation 4:
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 164, lines 6-22, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. What relational information is added by the dashed rectangle shown
`
`in light transmissive layer 3, in your opinion?
`
`
`3 For ease of cross-referencing between the IPR2017-00317 and -00318, Patent
`
`Owner has included citations to both matters, where applicable.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`A. (Witness reviews document.) So the – the dashed rectangles on layer
`
`3, the light transmissive material, are showing the projection of how the
`
`-- when assembled -- the windows would be -- overtop the light
`
`transmissive material.
`
`Q. But that relational information is already conveyed by the vertical
`
`dashed lines in Figure 11, correct?
`
`A. That entire box is showing how they would be assembled and
`
`projected down. So -- so I think, as I've stated here, that they're showing
`
`the alignment -- the assembly and the alignment of the -- when
`
`assembled -- of the windows overtop the light transmissive material.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s and Dr. Anthony’s interpretation that the
`
`dashed rectangles on layer 3 of Figure 11 of Asada are meant to show alignment at
`
`page 15 of the -318 Reply. This testimony is relevant because it shows that Petitioner
`
`ignores that the relational information is already conveyed via the vertical lines,
`
`which are used for layer 3 and the other components of Figure 11.
`
`Observation 5:
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 168, line 3 through page 169, line 12, Dr. Anthony
`
`testified as follows:
`
`Q. So how do you know that element 1 doesn't provide that function of
`
`protecting the optical components from direct contact with the skin?
`
`A. (Witness reviews document.) So that if you were to have openings,
`
`a window and a hole in that light transmissive material, the components,
`
`the LED emitter and detector, could be making contact with the -- with
`
`the body -- with the skin.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`Q. And how do you know that element 1 doesn't prevent that? It's sitting
`
`on top of the -- of the assembly of Figure 11.
`
`A. (Witness reviews document.) It could also be serving to help, but,
`
`you know, every -- the complete assembly is intended to protect the – I
`
`believe that a person skilled in the art would understand -- for multiple
`
`reasons -- that – that light transmissive material is showing -- the dashed
`
`lines are showing how the windows are -- are there, and, then,
`
`furthermore, as I elaborated, I think a person skilled in the art would
`
`also understand that they serve to protect the optical components.
`
`Q. How do you know that Element 2 of Figure 11 of Asada isn't serving
`
`the function of protecting optical components from direct contact with
`
`the skin?
`
`A. So, in aggregate, the construction of the device is going to meet the
`
`design goals. Having very thick cladding material, for example, could
`
`serve to help further isolate the optical components. But I'm not relying
`
`on, sort of, that notion in isolation to understand that a person skilled in
`
`the art would understand that that layer would help to protect. Other
`
`layers could also help to protect. And the -- yeah.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s and Dr. Anthony’s position that “if the
`
`dashed rectangles in light transmissive Layer 3 were apertures, the optical
`
`components would be exposed and directly contact the skin” at page 15 of the -318
`
`Reply. This testimony is relevant because it shows that elements 1 and 2 of Figure
`
`11 of Asada would nonetheless protect the optical components from direct contact
`
`with the skin.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`Observation 6:
`
`In the Dec. 20 Tr., on page 49, line 9 through page 51, line 5, Dr. Anthony
`
`testified as follows:
`
`Q. Have you ever seen "guiding" defined as allowing to pass?
`
`A. (Witness reviews document.) So as I – as I do highlight here, I mean,
`
`a person skilled in the art reading these claims would have understood
`
`that a -- what is being described as a window that is serving as a light-
`
`guiding interface to the body, that it's allowing light to come from --
`
`through -- pass through the cladding material into the body. And that's
`
`-- window is serving as that light-guiding interface to the body.
`
`Q. (Reviews screen.) So I asked you: "Have you ever seen "guiding"
`
`defined as allowing to pass?" Then you cited to the claim claims. So are
`
`the claims here the only situation where you've seen the term "guiding"
`
`defined as “allowing to pass"?
`
`A. So I was not forming a broad general opinion of what "guiding"
`
`means. I was making a statement in my declaration about what guiding
`
`means -- the light-guiding interface means in the contexts of these -- of
`
`this patent. If you want me to formulate a global definition of "guiding"
`
`under all its possible uses, I did not do that before this deposition -- or
`
`before my declaration.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s arguments on the construction of the term
`
`“light guiding interface” at pages 5-8 of the -317 and -318 Replies. This testimony
`
`is relevant because it shows the lack of basis for Petitioner’s interpretation that “light
`
`guiding” can mean allowing light to pass.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`Observation 7:
`
`In the Dec. 20 Tr., on page 55, lines 1-10, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. Do you know if all the layers of Goodman are adhered together in
`
`Figure 2C?
`
`A. (Witness reviews document.) Without re -- rereading or looking at
`
`the -- Goodman's -- the Goodman reference, I don't recall explicitly
`
`whether that's stated, but a person skilled in the art would understand
`
`that they would likely be adhered together in some way to form a tight
`
`construction with adhesive between the layers to hold them together.
`
`This testimony is relevant to pages 9-11 of the -317 and -318 Replies, where
`
`Petitioner relies on Dr. Anthony to make its argument that the elements of
`
`Goodman’s Figure 2C are not adhered together as shown in the modified figure in
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses. This testimony is relevant because, prior to this
`
`deposition, Dr. Anthony was not aware of whether the elements in Goodman’s
`
`Figure 2C were adhered together, and thus Dr. Anthony lacked the required
`
`knowledge necessary to interpret Figure 2C.
`
`Observation 8:
`
`In the Dec. 20 Tr., on page 70, line 1 through page 71, line 7, Dr. Anthony
`
`testified as follows:
`
`Q. We know that light emitter 24 is adhered to element 30; correct?
`
`A. Through adhesive surface 32, yup, as described on line 21 or 22.
`
`Q. And we know that by "detector 14 is adhered to element 30";
`
`correct?
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`A. Yes. Again, through adhesive surface 32.
`
`Q. And, then, we also know that element 37 is adhered to element 30
`
`through two different kinds of adhesive: Element 32 and 38; correct?
`
`A. Yes, 32 and 38 are adhesives.
`
`Q. So in your expert opinion, PhD from MIT, how are elements 24 and
`
`14 not pushed through apertures 40 and 41, as depicted in Valencell's
`
`assembly of the Goodman Figure 2C?
`
`A. So as I -- as I highlight -- and as I said -- this is an incomplete
`
`construction. So I think it's misleading, because it's incomplete. A
`
`person skilled in the art would assemble the entire device and not just a
`
`fraction of the device. A person skilled in the art would not -- from both
`
`the description, from the figure, from the arrows -- would understand
`
`that the emitter detector may extend all the way through the windows.
`
`They're sitting close to it, but not all the way through.
`
`Q. Is that your best answer to my question?
`
`A. I also highlight that's the answer that Doctor Titus gave in describing
`
`a similar device. But yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument regarding Goodman’s Figure 2C
`
`at pages 9-11 of the -317 and -318 Replies. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`discredits Petitioner’s argument that the elements of Goodman’s Figure 2C are not
`
`adhered together such that elements 24 and 14 are pushed through apertures 40 and
`
`41, and supports Patent Owner’s position that, with elements 24 and 14 pushed
`
`through apertures 40 and 41, “the apertures cannot guide any light to the body and
`
`cannot deliver light along a path.” -317 Response at 33; -318 Response at 51.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`Observation 9:
`
`In the Dec. 20 Tr., on page 77, lines 20-23, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. Do all windows, in your opinion, allow light to pass through?
`
`A. Unless they're closed with blinds. But yes, windows will allow
`
`light to pass through.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s arguments on the construction of the term
`
`“light-guiding interface” at pages 5-8 of the -317 and -318 Replies. Dr. Anthony’s
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Petitioner’s inclusion of the phrase
`
`“allows the light to pass through” in its construction of window that serves as “light-
`
`guiding interface” is superfluous to the claimed “window,” given that, according to
`
`Dr. Anthony, all windows allow light to pass through.
`
`Observation 10:
`
`In the Dec. 20 Tr., on page 92, lines 3-14, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. But you agree with me that Hicks does have a buffer between the
`
`components in Figure 6, namely foam layer apertures 88, clear substrate
`
`80, and interconnecting layer 82; correct?
`
`A. I agree that the -- those materials are forming a thermal buffer. And
`
`I think there's a geometrical argument that Valencell was making in
`
`arguing against that physical size serving as a geometric or structural
`
`buffer, but, indeed, as is highlighted here, the air pocket, the clear
`
`substrate, and the interconnecting layer are creating a thermal insulative
`
`buffer.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Hicks does not have a buffer
`
`as annotated by Patent Owner at pages 19-20 of -317 and -318 Replies. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Anthony nonetheless confirmed that Hicks has a
`
`buffer between the components in Figure 6, namely between foam layer apertures
`
`88, clear substrate 80, and interconnecting layer 82.
`
`Observation 11:
`
`In Dec. 20 Tr., on page 162, lines 9-18, Dr. Anthony testified as follows:
`
`Q. You understand that a large portion of this declaration deals with
`
`overlapping issues that occur in the -318 matter; correct?
`
`A. I do.
`
`Q. And so we don't have to go over those same issues again, would your
`
`answers as you testified earlier today on the -317 matter equally apply
`
`to the overlapping parts of your declaration in the -317 in the -318
`
`matter?
`
`A. Yes, they would.
`
`This testimony is relevant to show that Dr. Anthony’s testimony in this deposition
`
`applies to both IPR2017-00317 and -00318.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,269
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document has been served via electronic
`
`mail on February 9, 2018, to Petitioner Apple at following email addresses pursuant
`
`to its consent in its Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 24) at p. 2: mspecht-
`
`PTAB@skgf.com, holoubek-PTAB@skgf.com, jfitzsimmons-PTAB@skgf.com,
`
`knasabza-PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com; and to Petitioner Fitbit
`
`according
`
`to
`
`its
`
`Petition
`
`at
`
`p.
`
`4:
`
`harper.batts@bakerbotts.com,
`
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com, and dlfitbit-valencell@bakerbotts.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ________________________
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket