`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - 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. and FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-003171 - U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
`Case IPR2017-003182 – U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`1 IPR2017-01553 has been joined to this current proceeding.
`2 IPR2017-01554 has been joined to this current proceeding.
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - 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.
`
`3.
`
` I previously submitted declarations in both of these proceedings in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s Responses (Papers 19 and 20) and
`
`Valencell’s Motions to Amend under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (Papers 20
`
`and 21) (collectively, “Declarations”). I incorporate all of these
`
`Declarations herein by reference.
`
`4.
`
`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. I have also
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`reviewed Petitioners’ Oppositions to the Motions to Amend and the
`
`supporting Declarations of Dr. Brian W. Anthony for the ’269 patent
`
`(Paper 33 and Exhibit 1103) and ’830 patent (Paper 28 and Exhibit
`
`1103).
`
`5.
`
`It is still my opinion that the substitute claims of the ’269 and ’830
`
`patents are not anticipated by the prior art, including the new prior art
`
`cited in the Oppositions to the Motions to Amend. It is also my opinion
`
`that the substitute claims of the ’269 and ’830 patents are not obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, individually or in combination.
`
`6.
`
`It is still my understanding that Valencell has not disputed Petitioners’
`
`definition of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”).
`
`7. My background qualifications and compensation remain unchanged
`
`from my original Declarations.
`
`8.
`
`In the formation of my opinions, I have relied upon the legal standards
`
`set forth in my prior Declarations.
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. The Cited Prior Art and the Motivation to Combine for the ’830 Patent.
`
`Goodman
`
`9.
`
`Goodman describes a device that is small and, when “the adhesive
`
`fastener is used, the effect of the light source and photo-detector
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`substrates being integrated into the adhesive fastener is that they
`
`become, in effect, a part of the skin.” APL1007 at Abstract. “This
`
`disclosed adhesive fastening conforms the elements of the apparatus so
`
`completely to the patient's skin that motion artifact is eliminated.
`
`Hence, the light extinction measurement and resulting analysis to
`
`determine oxygen saturation and pulse rate is more accurate and less
`
`sensitive to interference.” APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 41 – 47. The
`
`device’s tight adhesion to the skin prevents motion artifacts from
`
`distorting the signal. The Goodman device is “directed to providing
`
`non-invasive, reliable, and continuous monitoring of the vital signs of
`
`a patient requiring intensive care to prevent vital organ damage or
`
`reduced biopotential,” thus a patient with limited motion or mobility.
`
`APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 3-6. The Goodman device “is entirely
`
`disposable and thus sanitary.” APL1007 at Col. 6, lns. 22-23.
`
`Additionally, “the plastic, flexible adhesive strip can be secured over
`
`the end of the fingertip, not circumferentially around the finger. This
`
`prevents restriction of blood flow to the tissue to be illuminated and
`
`measured. Only nominal pressure from this invention to the patient is
`
`applied locally to the patient on the topical skin layer directly holding
`
`the light source and the photosensor. This pressure does not extend
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`across or into the perfused flesh in any way. There is no localized force
`
`exerted upon the flesh to be transilluminated. In sum, the flexible
`
`adhesive strip does not bind the perfused flesh. Consequently, the blood
`
`flow being interrogated is undisturbed.” APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 56-68.
`
`Thus, Goodman’s device by design minimizes the potential for inertial
`
`effects.
`
`Han
`
`10. Han is a conference paper entitled “Development of a wearable health
`
`monitoring device with motion artifact reduced algorithm.” APL1104
`
`at Title. Han describes a ring-type electronic device or “finger band
`
`sensor” that has a PPG sensor with a microprocessor that wirelessly
`
`communicates data to a remote computer. APL1104 at 1581-82. The
`
`device is composed of a number of components with a larger
`
`mechanical structure to secure it to the finger, and a battery for power.
`
`APL1104 at 1582. Han discusses a motion-artifact reduction algorithm
`
`that includes filtering (including an adaptive filter). APL1104 at 1582.
`
`11. Han tests the device using hand motion to simulate walking. APL1104
`
`at 1583-84. Han identifies the hand motion frequency as “Hand Motion,
`
`Run, 3 Hz.” APL1104 at Table 2, 1584. Thus, Han states that running
`
`is equivalent to 3Hz hand motion. Han provides “[a]s experiments, one
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`directional hand motions which has difference frequency conditions are
`
`given.” APL1104 at 1583. Additionally, Han states, “PPG signals are
`
`measured at not only moving left finger but also right finger in fixed
`
`pose, as a reference signal.” APL1104 at 1583. The Han device uses a
`
`signal from a stationary right finger as a comparison for the signals
`
`generated by the left finger, which is in motion. Additionally, Han does
`
`not disclose that the finger movement is striking a surface to simulate
`
`footsteps. Thus, finger-only or hand-only motion is used to allegedly
`
`simulate actual running. Han does not disclose any actual testing upon
`
`a running or jogging subject, Han only discloses this non-running
`
`simulation at a slow rate. So, the Han device has not demonstrated in
`
`theory or practice to be capable of reducing footstep motion artifacts.
`
`12. The filtering disclosed by Han appears to be done on the remote
`
`computer, as Han states that “Labview software from National
`
`Instrument obtains transmitted data and display by graph on the host
`
`computer. Also, digital
`
`filtering and analysis algorithm are
`
`programmed.” APL1104 at 1582. Thus,
`
`the filtering
`
`is also
`
`programmed in Labview, which is software developed by National
`
`Instruments and runs on a computer (not on the ring). And, since the
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`Han filtering is done in Labview on the computer, this is not suited to
`
`actual running.
`
`Motivation to Combine Goodman and Han
`
`13. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would not be
`
`motivated to combine Han with Goodman. The device of Han adds
`
`significant complexity, size, weight and mass, all of which defeat
`
`Goodman’s intended form and function. Indeed, Goodman, in his
`
`discussion of the background of the invention, lays out the justification
`
`for his invention as follows:
`
`“A sensor with appreciable mass or high aspect ratio is
`prone to developing relative motion between the light
`source, the photo-sensor and the tissue from minor
`mechanical disturbance. This relative motion creates
`concomitant variations in the light transmission from source
`to sensor and thus grossly distorts the measurement of light
`extinction. When this motion occurs, variances of light
`transmission are erroneous indicators of light extinction.
`These extinction errors ultimately cause corresponding
`errors in oxygen saturation measurement, all as a result of
`discontinuous contact and other causes of relative motion
`between the light source, the photo-sensor, and tissue. A
`possible profile of such a variant motion is shown in FIG.
`1E as component 12.” APL1007 at Col. 2, lns. 54-68.
`
`14. Thus, Goodman recognizes the problem and it is why his device is
`
`developed. Therefore, adding mass and a high aspect ratio creates the
`
`problem that Goodman is trying to solve, so a POSITA would not look
`
`to combine Han and Goodman for this reason.
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`15. A POSITA would not look to combine Han and Goodman as
`
`Goodman’s device is flexible and disposable while the Han device is a
`
`large, sturdy, solid ring with several expenses components attached to
`
`it. A POSITA would understand that the size, weight, and costs of the
`
`additional components of Han would defeat the purpose of the flexible
`
`and disposable device of Goodman. Additionally, the Han device is
`
`designed to “attach to body tightly to reduce noise effect and feel
`
`comfortable to wear.” APL1104 at 1581-82. A POSITA would not
`
`look to combine Han with Goodman as Goodman teaches away from a
`
`circumferential device such as a “tight” ring by specifically stating that
`
`“the plastic, flexible adhesive strip can be secured over the end of the
`
`fingertip, not circumferentially around the finger. This prevents
`
`restriction of blood flow to the tissue to be illuminated and measured. .
`
`. . In sum, the flexible adhesive strip does not bind the perfused flesh.
`
`Consequently, the blood flow being interrogated is undisturbed.”
`
`APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 56-68. Accordingly, a POSITA would not look
`
`to combine Han and Goodman for the reasons set forth above.
`
`The Substitute Claims of the ’830 Patent Are Not Obvious In View Of
`The Cited Prior Art.
`
`16. Goodman in view of Han fails to disclose “a signal processor
`
`configured to receive and process signals produced by the at least one
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`optical detector and the motion sensor to (i) reduce footstep motion
`
`artifacts from the at least one optical detector during running by the
`
`subject and (ii) extract physiological and motion parameters” as set
`
`forth in substitute claims 21 and 30. Petitioners fail to address the
`
`reduction in footstep motion artifacts during running. Dr. Anthony
`
`states “Han’s fourth order adaptive filter and digital filter would
`
`implement Han’s active noise cancellation algorithm to reduce motion
`
`artifacts in the signal measured by Goodman’s optical biosensor.”
`
`APL1103 at ¶54. This, however, fails to disclose the new claim
`
`elements in Substitute Claims 21 and 30.
`
`17. At high motion, such as during running, the noise associated with
`
`footsteps is strong enough to overwhelm the smaller signal associated
`
`with heart rate, and so the footstep-related contribution dominates the
`
`overall signal. Ex. 1001 at Col. 25, lns. 27-31. Running is different
`
`from walking and jogging as the magnitude of footstep-related artifacts
`
`is considerably greater due to the increased frequency and force exerted
`
`on the feet as an individual runs. For example, Dr. Anthony,
`
`Petitioners’ expert, testified that a sprinter can reach speeds of over 20
`
`miles per hour (“mph”) and a marathon runner may reach speeds of
`
`over 10 mph. Ex. 2150, Deposition of Dr. Anthony, 123:4-10 and
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`124:5-10. The footstep-related artifacts, at these speeds, would
`
`overwhelm a heartrate sensor.
`
`18. Han fails to disclose filtering sufficient to address the footstep-related
`
`artifacts of running. Han never even addresses the footstep-related
`
`artifacts of running. Han only discloses finger and/or hand waving
`
`without either ever contacting a surface. The motion artifacts of such
`
`activity are quite different than the footstep-related artifacts during
`
`running. Han merely discloses waving a hand at 3Hz for its simulation.
`
`Therefore, Goodman and Han do not disclose or teach how to “reduce
`
`footstep motion artifacts,” so Substitute Claims 21 and 30 are not
`
`rendered obvious by Goodman in view of Han.
`
`B. The Cited Prior Art and the Motivation to Combine for the ’269 Patent.
`
`Asada
`
`19. Asada involves “[w]earable biosensors (‘WBS’)” such as “a ring sensor
`
`for ambulatory, telemetric, [and] continuous health monitoring.”
`
`APL1005, Asada at p. 28. Asada’s wearable biosensors are intended
`
`for “monitoring environments…out-of-hospital, [and] are to be worn
`
`without direct doctor supervision.” APL1005, Asada at p. 28. Under
`
`that arrangement, Asada describes a device
`
`that “combines
`
`miniaturized
`
`data
`
`acquisition
`
`features with
`
`advanced
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`photophlethysmographic (PPG) techniques to acquire data related to
`
`the patient’s cardiovascular state using a method that is far superior to
`
`existing fingertip PPG sensors.” APL1005, Asada at p. 28. Asada
`
`describes a method for dealing with motion artifacts by using a motion
`
`detection system that is implemented with a second PPG sensor, and a
`
`“pusher” to create motion for the noise signal. APL1005, Asada at pp.
`
`32-33. Asada discusses comfort and reliability as important to wearable
`
`biosensors. APL1005, Asada at pp. 29-30. Asada does not state that
`
`his own designs are uncomfortable. APL1005, Asada at p. 36.
`
`Swedlow
`
`20. Swedlow discloses an apparatus for the detection of motion transients
`
`using a piezoelectric film that indicates motion of the pulse oximeter’s
`
`sensor (photodetector and emitter). APL1006, Col. 4, lns. 40-68. The
`
`components are mounted on the piezeoelectric film or on separate
`
`substrate that is then mounted to the piezoelectric film. APL1006, Col.
`
`5, lns. 48-68. These components are a portion of the entire Swedlow
`
`device which is intended to be a wired device with cables connecting
`
`the sensor which is adhered to the body and the read-out electronics.
`
`21. As stated in Swedlow, “[i]n an alternate embodiment, the lead frame
`
`packages 26 and 29, photodetector 15 and LEDs 13 and 16 are mounted
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`on a flexible substrate 25. In the preferred embodiment, opaque layer
`
`14 and clear layer 12 are peanut-shaped to provide adequate coverage
`
`of the optical components, wires and motion sensor.” APL1006, Col. 5,
`
`lns. 57-62. Further, Swedlow provides “[a]n electrical cable 23
`
`provides the LED driving current and returns photodetector 15 and
`
`motion sensing element 19 signals to the oximeter. In the preferred
`
`embodiment, the cable contains three shielded, twisted pairs of
`
`conductors, one pair each for the detector, the emitters and the motion
`
`sensing element. The cable's
`
`inner shield
`
`is coupled
`
`to
`
`the
`
`photodetector's Faraday shield. Both the outer and inner cable shields
`
`are tied to analog ground. All wires are terminated in the sensor
`
`connector.” APL1006, Col. 6, lns. 19-29. From these descriptions, it is
`
`clear to a POSITA that the Swedlow device, despite using a flexible
`
`substrate, uses wires throughout. APL1006, Col. 5, lns. 57-62.
`
`Combining Asada and Swedlow
`
`22.
`
` Petitioners claim that wires are inherently uncomfortable when
`
`wrapped around a finger and are prone to disconnection, citing to a third
`
`patent, Awazu (APL1107, 1:55-58). Opp. at 3-4. Petitioners then claim
`
`a POSITA “would have looked to more reliable and comfortable means
`
`to transport signals to and from the at least one optical emitter and
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`photodector of Asada. (Anthony Decl., ¶50.)” Opp. at p. 4. Asada does
`
`not discuss problems with disconnection or comfort. Asada specifically
`
`states its ring does not have a comfort problem. APL1005, Asada at p.
`
`36. Additionally, nothing in Asada discloses wires wrapped around a
`
`finger; a ring is disclosed. Petitioners state that a POSITA would
`
`combine Asada and Swedlow “to allow signals to be transmitted to and
`
`from the optical emitter and photodetector via etched wires.” Opp. at
`
`5. However, neither Asada nor Swedlow discuss “etched wires.”
`
`Neither of the references uses this phrase. Accordingly, there is no
`
`motivation to combine Asada and Swedlow for reliability and
`
`comfortableness.
`
`23. Asada describes a method for dealing with motion artifacts by using a
`
`motion detection system that is implemented with a second PPG sensor,
`
`and a “pusher” to create motion for the noise signal. APL1005, Asada
`
`at p. 32-33. Swedlow primarily presents a method for dealing with
`
`motion transients (artifacts). APL1006, Col. 4, lns. 40-68. As Asada
`
`and Swedlow both solve a similar problem, a POSITA would not look
`
`to Swedlow to solve the problem that Asada has already solved.
`
`Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to combine Asada and
`
`Swedlow.
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`Fricke
`
`24. The Fricke patent application describes an optical sensor and signal
`
`processing device that is to be placed on the skin to measure
`
`physiological signals (heart rate, respiration rate and blood pressure).
`
`APL1104, at Abstract. Fricke discloses that it removes motion artifacts
`
`and external vibration noise APL1104 at ¶¶67-68.
`
`Combining Asada, Swedlow and Fricke
`
`25. A POSITA would not look to combine Fricke and Asada because Fricke
`
`presents essentially the same concepts as Asada, except the Asada’s
`
`devices are ring-based, while Fricke presents devices that may be
`
`clamped to an ear or adhered using adhesive.
`
`26. Specifically, a POSITA would not look to Fricke to solve problems
`
`related to motion-generated noise in Asada because Asada deals with
`
`this problem directly. As explained herein, Asada uses a combination
`
`of methods to eliminate noise artifacts such as the second photodetector
`
`and “pusher” device. APL1005, Asada at pp. 32-33. Indeed, as Asada
`
`states,
`
`“As a result, the waveform of this transmittal PPG was quite
`stable. Figure 3 presented earlier is the experiment of
`Prototype B. Note that the transmittal PPG (Prototype B)
`signal did not collapse even when the hand was shaken.
`Additionally, the analog filtering circuit was optimized for
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`quality of signal. These modifications greatly improved the
`ability of the device to measure traditionally difficult
`variables such as heart rate variability (Table 1, Figure 12).”
`APL1005, Asada at p. 35.
`
`27. Thus, with this level of performance, one would not look to Fricke to
`
`solve the problem of vibration or motion since Asada has presented a
`
`solution. This is reinforced where Asada is describing his second
`
`prototype and states, “[t]his allows us to implement noise-canceling
`
`filters effectively despite complex motion artifact.” APL1005, Asada at
`
`p. 34. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to combine Asada,
`
`Swedlow, and Fricke.
`
`Gupta
`
`28. The Gupta conference paper presents the design of a system that is worn
`
`as part of a glove to monitor heart rate, but is also described as being
`
`able to detect falls. APL1105, Gupta at Abstract. The Gupta device is
`
`large (see Fig. 7 which shows the multiple circuit boards) and is
`
`powered using a large 9-Volt battery. APL1105, Gupta at p. 5. The
`
`device transmits data wirelessly to a remote computer. APL1105,
`
`Gupta at p. 1. Its sensors include a temperature sensor, a sensor to
`
`measure pulse rate and an impact sensor. APL1105, Gupta at p. 2.
`
`29. The impact sensor is an “ADXL311 accelerometer”. APL1105, Gupta
`
`at p. 2. The ADXL311 accelerometer provides a 2-axis response,
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`measuring accelerations up to +/- 2g and it was fitted into the wrist
`
`strap.” APL1105, Gupta at p. 2. The impact sensor is used to measure
`
`impact only (when the person falls the body part with the attached
`
`sensor hits the floor or other object). APL1105, Gupta at p. 2. All other
`
`motion information is ignored. APL1105, Gupta at p. 2. As stated in
`
`Gupta, “Software algorithms were used to detect sharp impacts, while
`
`allowing slower movements, such as walking, to be ignored. The
`
`purpose of this sensor was to detect sudden impacts that could indicate
`
`the patient had fallen over.” APL1105, Gupta at p. 2. Gupta does not
`
`use the motion information in combination with the pulse information;
`
`indeed, as stated, the motion information is ignored.
`
`30. A true and correct copy of the ADXL311 Rev B Datasheets found on
`
`the Analog Devices website, www.analog.com, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 2153. A true and correct copy of the ADXL311 Rev A
`
`Datasheets found on the www.alldatasheets.com, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 2152. The datasheets for the ADXL311 accelerometer describe
`
`the part as made by Analog Devices. See Exs. 2152 and 2153. The Rev
`
`A Datasheet provides that “[t]he ADXL311 is built using the same
`
`proven iMEMS process used in over 100 million Analog Devices
`
`accelerometers shipped to date…” Ex. 2152 at p. 1. Similarly, the Rev
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`B Datasheet provides that “[t]he ADXL311 is built using the same
`
`proven iMEMS process used in over 180 million Analog Devices
`
`accelerometers shipped to date…”, only updating the number of
`
`devices shipped. Ex. 2153 at p. 1. From this, we can see that both the
`
`Rev A and Rev B of the ADXL311 accelerometer are in fact MEMS
`
`(MicroElectroMechanical Systems) devices. See Exs. 2152 at p. 1 and
`
`2153 at p. 1.
`
`Combining Asada, Swedlow, Fricke and Gupta
`
`31. Petitioners’ position is flawed as there is insufficient motivation to
`
`combine Asada, Swedlow, Fricke and Gupta. A POSITA would not
`
`look to combine Asada and Gupta because Asada expressly teaches
`
`away from a device such as Gupta.
`
`32. Asada expressly states to NOT use a MEMS device, “[t]he motion of
`
`the finger can be measured with an accelerometer attached to the body
`
`of the ring. MEMS accelerometers are now available at low cost, but
`
`they are still too bulky and/or consume too much power to use for the
`
`ring sensor.” APL1005, Asada at pp. 32-33. Both Asada and the
`
`ADXL311 Rev A Datasheet are dated 2003 so this was a known
`
`technology from the same time of Asada. Thus, one would not look to
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`Gupta to add an impact sensor to Asada that Asada specifically says
`
`will not work with the ring.
`
`33. Additionally, a POSITA would not look to combine Gupta with Asada
`
`because Gupta describes a device that is completely incompatible with
`
`Asada’s small ring. Asada has integrated many components onto a ring,
`
`including the battery, while Gupta shows a large device with multiple
`
`circuit boards and a 9-Volt battery that by itself is larger than the Asada
`
`ring. The size of the battery (9-Volt) indicates that the electrical
`
`components in Gupta either require higher voltages to operate than the
`
`Asada device, or require more current (power). The Gupta device with
`
`a larger and more power-hungry components, performs a subset of the
`
`functions that the Asada device does, so one would not look to combine
`
`Gupta and Asada. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to
`
`combine Asada, Swedlow, Fricke and Gupta.
`
`Goodman
`
`34. Goodman is described above in paragraph 9.
`
`Combining Goodman and Asada
`
`35. Goodman describes a device that is adhesively attached to the flesh to
`
`deliver an optical signal to the body and detect an optical signal from
`
`the body to eventually obtain pulse and oxygenation information.
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 41 – 47. “When the adhesive fastener is used,
`
`the effect of the light source and photo-detector substrates being
`
`integrated into the adhesive fastener is that they become, in effect, a
`
`part of the skin.” APL1007 at Abstract. The Goodman device is
`
`effectively a photodetector and emitter sandwiched in adhesive layers,
`
`forming a very thing “band-aid”-like device that is low cost and
`
`disposable. The adhesion and minimal nature of the device eliminates
`
`motion artifacts since it is “part of the skin.” APL1007 at Abstract.
`
`Goodman does not exhibit any problems due to motion. The Asada
`
`device is a ring device that is much larger, heavier and bulkier than the
`
`Goodman band-aid. A POSITA would not look to combine Goodman
`
`with Asada as Goodman’s stated purpose is to prevent motion artifacts.
`
`Additionally, Goodman is intended for use on patients who are
`
`primarily bed-ridden, “[t]he present invention is directed to providing
`
`non-invasive, reliable, and continuous monitoring of the vital signs of
`
`a patient requiring intensive care to prevent vital organ damage or
`
`reduced biopotential.” APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 3 - 6. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would not look to combine Goodman with Asada to solve motion
`
`problems for a device that is intended to be used on people where there
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`is little motion. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to combine
`
`Goodman and Asada.
`
`Combining Goodman, Asada, and Fricke:
`
`36. A POSITA would not look to Fricke to solve problems related to
`
`motion-generated noise in Goodman and Asada because Asada deals
`
`with this problem directly. As explained previously, Asada uses a
`
`combination of methods to eliminate noise artifacts such as the second
`
`photodetector and “pusher” device, APL1005, Asada at pp. 32-33,
`
`Goodman does not exhibit motion-related problems as they have been
`
`“eliminated.” APL1007 at Col. 5, lns. 41 – 47. A POSITA would not
`
`look to Fricke for filtering to remove these problems as these problems
`
`do not exist in either Goodman or Asada. Accordingly, there is
`
`insufficient evidence to combine Goodman, Asada, and Fricke.
`
`Combining Goodman, Asada, Fricke, and Gupta
`
`37. As stated previously, a POSITA would not look to combine Asada and
`
`Gupta because Asada expressly teaches away from a device such as
`
`Gupta. Asada expressly states to NOT use a MEMS device. APL1005,
`
`Asada at pp. 32-33. Both Asada and the ADXL311 Rev A Datasheet
`
`are dated 2003 so this was a known technology from the same time of
`
`Asada. Thus, one would not look to Gupta to add a device to Asada
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`that Asada specifically says will not work with the ring. Therefore,
`
`there is insufficient evidence to combine Goodman, Asada, Fricke, and
`
`Gupta.
`
`III. Summary of Opinions
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that the amended claims of the ’269 and ’830 patents
`
`are not anticipated by the prior art. It is also my opinion that the
`
`amended claims of the ’269 and ’830 patents are not obvious in light of
`
`the prior art identified by the Petitioners in their Oppositions to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motions to Amend, individually or in combination. It is
`
`further my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`be motivated to combine the prior art references as discussed herein.
`
`IV. STATEMENT UNDER U.S.C. SECTION 1001 OF TITLE 18
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States that all
`
`statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made
`
`on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements
`
`were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the
`
`United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`Executed this 28th day of December 2017 in Buffalo, New York.
`
`___________________________________
`Albert H. Titus, PhD.
`
`IPR2017-00318
`REPLY TO CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VALENCELL INC.
`EXHIBIT 2151 - PAGE 23
`
`