`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
` Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)1,2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 27, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and SHEILA F.
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BYRON L. PICKARD, ESQUIRE
`MICHELLE K. HOLOUBEK, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`MARK CONSILVIO, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JUSTIN B. KIMBLE, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY BRAGALONE, ESQUIRE
`Bragalone Conroy, P.C.
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
`
`and
`
`R. SCOTT RHOADES, ESQUIRE
`Warren Rhoades
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, February
`
`27, 2018, commencing at 11:50 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE McNAMARA: This is going to be the hearing in
`IPR2017-00319 and 00321. And again, we'll hear first from the petitioner,
`then the patent owner and any rebuttal from the petitioner. Petitioner has
`40 minutes. Is there some amount of time you would like me to alert you to?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to reserve ten
`minutes for rebuttal, please.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you begin, because we are
`doing this as a consolidated hearing, although it is the same patent for both
`cases, if there are arguments that you are presenting which are related only
`to one of the two petitions, if you would please specify which petition you
`are speaking of.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: Yes, Your Honor, I'll do that.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. Please proceed.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: Thank you. Good morning. May it please the
`Board, my name is Michelle Holoubek and I represent petitioner, Apple Inc.,
`along with my colleagues Mark Consilvio and Michael Specht, who are
`backup counsel on this case.
`At the outset, as I mentioned, I would like to reserve ten minutes
`for rebuttal in this portion of the hearing. Both of them relate to Valencell's
`'941 patent. First I will plan to discuss the 319 IPR which covers claims 1 to
`2 and 6 to 13. And then I'll turn to the 321 IPR which covers claims 14
`through 21, along with its motion to amend.
`Regarding claims 1 to 2 and 6 to 13, the Board's analysis of these
`claims in its institution decision was correct. Rather than presenting
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`anything new during the trial portion of this proceeding, Valencell simply
`dug in on the same arguments as before that the Board had already
`considered in its institution decision. No new information has been provided
`that should change the decision previously rendered by the Board.
`Each claim in this IPR would have been obvious based on the
`combination of Luo and Craw, if we could turn to slide 2, which provides us
`with a summary. And again, these demonstratives that I'm referring to right
`now are in the 319 portion of our demonstratives.
`So we have the combination of Luo plus Craw, and then separately
`a combination based on the references Mault and Al-Ali. Valencell's
`arguments to the contrary rest on a faulty and overly narrow reading of claim
`1. And because the arguments have focused on claim 1 and not any of the
`dependent claims, claim 1 is what we'll focus on today as well.
`So let's take a look together at claim 1 to see what it actually
`recites. If we turn to slide 3, we can see that we have a method with two
`steps. We have a sensing step and a processing step. And I find these
`individual steps pretty long, so I find it helpful to break them up. In the
`sensing step, two types of data are sensed, physical activity and
`physiological information. This data is sensed by a monitoring device. And
`that monitoring device is open-ended so it can comprise any number of
`sensors. But the claim does require that the physical activity be sensed by at
`least one motion sensor. And the claim also requires that the physiological
`information be sensed by at least one PPG sensor. Now, that doesn't mean
`that all the physiological information sensed by the entire monitoring device
`must come solely from this PPG sensor. It simply means that the PPG
`sensor has to contribute to the physiological data. That's what it says.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, with regard to claim construction, the
`physiological information was something we construed in the DI, and I don't
`believe that patent owner has challenged that construction. Is that your
`understanding?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: That's my understanding as well, yes.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Patent owner, however, has proposed a
`modification for the construction of the term "PPG sensor" which you just
`mentioned. Do you have any objections to the patent owner's construction
`of that term?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: No, I have no objections to that, Your Honor.
`We agree with that.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Are those the only claim construction issues that
`we are dealing with in the 319 case?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: To my knowledge, we don't really have any
`claim construction issues other than that correction to the PPG sensor. We
`have not disputed any of the claim constructions as instituted by the Board.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much, counselor. Please
`continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So going back to the claim, the claim says at
`least one PPG sensor for sensing the physiological data. That is open-ended.
`So other sensors can contribute to the physiological data as well. And that's
`important because Valencell's primary argument against both grounds in the
`319 IPR is that all the physiological data in the claim has to come from the
`PPG sensor. But again, the claim uses words like "comprising" and "at
`least" and is open-ended.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`So we'll turn then to the processing step. What is it that's
`processed? Signals from the at least one motion sensor and the at least one
`PPG sensor. They are processed into a serial data output of physiological
`information and motion-related information. Note that this portion of the
`claim doesn't say that the serial data output is of the physiological
`information. Instead the claim recites a combined output of physiological
`information and motion-related information. And that output is configured
`such that heart rate and respiration rate can be extracted from the
`physiological information as it exists in the serial data output. That's not as
`it existed prior to the processing. Nothing in the processing step that you see
`here ties the physiological information of the serial data output directly and
`solely to the PPG sensor.
`So since the core of Valencell's arguments against the instituted
`grounds relies on a different reading of the claims that skips over a lot of
`words in the claims, it's our position that their arguments cannot succeed.
`So why don't we take a look at Luo and Mault in turn. Turning to slide 6 of
`petitioner's 319 demonstratives, Luo discloses a wearable physiological
`monitoring device. This one is configured to be worn over the ear. As
`shown in Figure 1, which is in the upper right-hand corner, Luo's device
`includes sensors S1 and S2 along with a processor CPM.
`If we look at Figure 3 here, Luo tells us that S1 is a physiological
`sensor for detecting, among other things, heart rate and respiration rate. Luo
`states that this is a PPG sensor. Luo also includes activity sensors S2 for
`sensing physical activity. Raw data from the physiological sensors that you
`see on that left-hand column of Figure 3 is fed into the processor CPM along
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`with the raw data from the activity sensors. And then Luo processes the
`sensor data to produce parameterized data.
`If we turn to slide 7, this processing is shown --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you go to slide 7, go back to
`slide 6. Does it matter that Luo describes the use of a reflection plate?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: The only reason that it matters in the figure is
`because S1 is the PPG sensor, because a PPG sensor operates on the basis of
`emitted and then reflected or transmitted light in this configuration of Luo.
`So the reflection plate here allows the light that's been emitted by the PPG
`sensor. This, I think, attaches to the bottom of the ear lobe because this is an
`ear cuff. So light transmits through the ear, hits the reflection plate, bounces
`back through the ear and is received again by the PPG sensor.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, you said reflected or transmitted. I
`believe that Mault talks about the use of PPG sensors that reflect and
`transmit. And that was the basis of my question. Is there any significance in
`Luo's teaching to the use of a reflection plate?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: No particular significance. No, Your Honor,
`there are PPG sensors that operate without reflection plates.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. Please continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So turning to slide 7, we can see the processor
`in a little bit more detail. This is Luo's Figure 4 and Figure 5. Figure 4
`covers how the physiological signals are processed. So you can see on the
`left-hand side of Figure 4, you have the individual sensors. And that raw
`data is fed into the center portion, which is what is happening in the
`processor. And so you can see that raw sensor data is converted by the
`processor into actual parameterized values that then tell you something
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`about the physiological information. So for instance, here you have body
`temperature, you have SpO2 values, you have glucose. Luo also describes
`in there that heart rate and respiration rate are calculated in the same way or
`at least in the same processing. So then those parameters, as you can see in
`Figure 4 --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, where does Luo describe calculation
`of respiration rate?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So if we look at in the petition on pages 17 to
`18, this is in the 319 petition, so if we look at Luo in paragraph 1055 is the
`exhibit and paragraphs 28 and 46, and that's where it describes sort of the
`processing here. I will say claim 37 of Luo also discloses that a respiration
`rate is calculated. And as our expert testified when asked about this in
`deposition, you see between life sign 1 and life sign N, there are those dotted
`lines, there's a lot of sensors in there, and similarly when you see body
`temperature, SpO2 value and then there's some dotted lines, there's other
`data. The processing is not just simply limited to those three data
`parameters that you see in Figure 4. So respiration rate is one of those
`parameters that's calculated in this overall process.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. Please continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So just finishing up on Figure 4, you can see
`that that physiological information is then output by the processor. Figure 5
`you see the same thing happening with the activity sensors where the
`activity sensors are input, the parameters themselves are processed and then
`the activity information is then output. And so if you turn back to slide 6
`momentarily, you can see that those outputs are transmitted to a recipient.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`Luo indicates also that the monitoring device here can include a
`USB port for downloading the output health information to an external
`computer. So that implies that it's a serial data output. Now, Luo doesn't
`explicitly describe the format of that output data or how it might be
`converted into serial format. So that's where Craw comes in.
`If we could turn to slide 8, Craw describes a network of
`physiological monitoring devices that need to be able to communicate with
`each other. In Craw you have sensors that detect various parameters like
`blood pressure, heart rate and respiration rate just like in Luo. And shown in
`Figure 7G here, this is slide 8 of the 319 demonstratives, that illustrates how
`a serial data output would be formatted to transmit data. And you can see
`here in this figure how it has parameterized values, and that's such as what's
`demonstrated here, systolic value, diastolic pressure, heart rate, all of that
`serialized into a single signal. Figure 8I at the top of the page also illustrates
`what that signal looks like as a bit stream. And a receiving device such as a
`display that you can see in Figure 9A can then extract the data from the
`serial output signal and display the individual values.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, with regard to claim 1, I don't see
`where there is a transmitting step in that method. And I believe patent
`owner argued that there is a distinction in Craw between preparing serialized
`data for transmission or transmitting serialized data and the processing to
`obtain serialized data that's described in the method. How do you respond to
`that argument?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So this particular signal, when it's prepared, it
`doesn't have to be transmitted. It's not simply transmitting -- sorry,
`serializing the data for transmission. It is serializing the data into an output
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`data stream. That is all that the claim requires. And Craw does this. The
`fact that this data stream is then later taken and transmitted to an external
`device is in apposite to the claim because the claim doesn't provide any
`limitations on what happens with the data after it's been serialized.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. Please continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: If we turn to slide 9, in fact, it's interesting to
`see the comparison between Craw on slide 8 that we just showed and slide 9.
`This shows Valencell's own annotations on Figure 18 of the '941 patent.
`You can see that this is exactly the same thing that's happening in claim 1 of
`the '941 patent and in Craw.
`In Figure 18 there of the '941 patent, sensors feed data into the
`processor multiplexer 602 in a serial string that looks just like Craw's.
`Figure 8I is output. And then just as Craw illustrated that its signal was
`formatted to include these parameterized information in the signal one after
`the other, you can see that the '941 patent signal is formatted in the same
`way.
`
`I realize we have been going a long time on Luo plus Craw, so if
`there's no further questions on that, I would like to turn to the next ground of
`Mault and Al-Ali. Claim 1, if we turn to slide 15 of the 319 demonstratives,
`claim 1 is also unpatentable over the combination of Mault and Al-Ali.
`Mault discloses a monitoring device that's worn on the wrist, and Figure 4
`here shows the details of monitoring device 84. So you can see that
`monitoring device 84 includes a motion sensor 114 which corresponds to the
`activity sensor of claim 1. Device 84 also includes a heart rate sensor 109
`and a respiration sensor 105. Mault discloses that the heart rate sensor 109
`is a PPG sensor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`All the data from those sensors is fed into CPU 88 which processes
`the sensor data and then transmits it to other devices. Though as you
`mentioned, Your Honor, transmission is not necessary. That's just what
`happens with the data after it's been processed in Mault. Mault does not
`explicitly disclose processing the signals into the multiparameter serial data
`output. But that kind of data output would have been obvious in view of
`Al-Ali.
`
`If we turn to slide 20, slide 20 illustrates how Al-Ali works.
`Al-Ali is a physiological measurement system quite similar to Mault. Raw
`data from multiple physiological sensors 1302 is input into a signal
`processor 1330 through interfaces 1310. As described in Al-Ali, signal
`processors 1330 convert the raw sensor data into physiological parameters
`such as pulse rate and respiration rate. Those parameters are then sent
`individually. That's those lines 1332 to multiplexor 1340. And then
`multiplexor 1340 then combines those parameters into a serial bit stream.
`So it is petitioner's position that applying that data formatting
`teaching to the output data of Mault would render claim 1 obvious.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, that brings up a point with regard to
`both of the combinations. Why would you do this combination? Why
`would you add the serialization teachings of Al-Ali to Mault? Why would
`you add the serialization teachings of Craw to Luo?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So in any combination you look to whether
`there was a motivation, but you also look to what was known in the art, what
`were the general possibilities for outputting data, for example, that was
`known in the art. And in both of these cases, this is simply application of a
`known technique to a known device and it produces a predictable result.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`KSR tells us that that is a satisfactory rationale for combining two
`references. This is a particular individual trying to implement a
`physiological monitoring device would have their selection of any number
`of output options. And there may be reasons to use one over the other. And
`given that there are opportunities and options for outputting data, it's either
`going to be you are outputting it in parallel or you are outputting it in serial.
`So it's not like there are an infinite number of options there. So we think it's
`reasonable that a person of skill in the art would have taken this known
`technique of Al-Ali and applied it to the output of Mault as well as in the
`earlier combination of Luo and Craw.
`JUDGE ARPIN: But counselor, you are not relying on any
`particular teaching in either reference for their combination. It's just that it
`would be an option available to a person of ordinary skill in the art and that
`there are a limited number of options available? Is that a summary of your
`position?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: I think it's also that neither Luo nor Mault, the
`base reference in each combination, they don't really describe how the data
`would be output. These claims are very specific in what the particular
`format of that data is. And so when we are looking at, okay, if I am an
`innovator or an individual looking at Mault or looking at Luo, I know I need
`to output data. How am I going to output that data? Well, I would look to
`known output processing techniques in the art to determine how to output
`that data. So that's why when you are looking for that detail, that's why a
`person of skill in the art would look to Mault or Al-Ali or would look to
`Craw for the signal processing techniques.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: But there's nothing about the data here that lends
`itself to either serialization or another form of transmission?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: You can look at -- well, if you look at Al-Ali,
`for example, you have the signal processors that initially when they come up
`with the parameterized elements, like heart rate or respiration rate, if you are
`sending something via parallel and say you have a monitor that is taking
`several different parameters, to send them all in parallel there is a
`complication that is introduced. So you have to have multiple transmitters.
`These are typically very small devices when they are wearable devices. So
`you would have to have multiple transmitters if you are transmitting them in
`parallel. You would have to have sort of multiple encoding schemes on each
`one so that the receivers could identify which ones they are going to receive.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Do these arguments that you have just made
`appear in the record now?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: We do discuss about how there is the option of
`serial versus parallel and that one of skill in the art would be motivated to
`choose serial data. I don't know that we go into the detail of what all -- why
`there would be a disadvantage to going into parallel.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor. Please continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: Sure. I have about 11 minutes left, so I would
`like to turn to the 321 IPR, if there's no further questions about the 319 IPR.
`So now I'm going to be referring to the 321 demonstratives set, and we'll
`start off on slide 2 here.
`So each of claims 14 to 21 would have been obvious based on the
`combination of Kosuda and Maekawa and separately based on the
`combination of Aceti versus Fricke. As with the first case, Valencell here
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`has focused its arguments on the independent claim 14 and not any of the
`dependent claims. So that's where we'll also be focused today.
`Let's take a quick look at claim 14 on slide 3. Claim 14 is very
`different from the claim we just reviewed for the 319 IPR. Claim 14 is a
`device claim. And we have it here compared to Kosuda which is the
`primary reference. So I would like to walk through what this claim requires.
`It includes -- you know, the device, includes a housing. You have a chipset
`located within the housing. The chipset includes --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, one quick question. Again, I asked
`previously about the claim construction issues in the DI. We construed
`several terms, body, headset, housing, chipset, window. Neither party
`appears to dispute those constructions. Again, patent owner has suggested a
`modification to the PPG sensor construction. Is it correct to say that there is
`no dispute, at least from petitioner's side, on any of these claim terms or on
`the proposed term construction made by the patent owner?
`MS. HOLOUBEK: That is correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor. Please continue.
`MS. HOLOUBEK: So going back to claim 14, we have a chipset
`in the housing. The chipset includes a PPG sensor, motion sensor and a
`signal processor. Housing also includes a window to optically expose the
`PPG sensor to a body and a non-air light transmissive material in optical
`communication with a PPG sensor and the window. This is clearly taught
`by Kosuda in view of Maekawa.
`Comparing the claim to Figure 3 of Kosuda, you can see the
`similarity. Kosuda include a housing comprising at least one window. And
`in Kosuda, that's the combination of main body watch case 10A, back lid 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`and transparent glass 13C. There's a chipset within the housing, and that's
`the circuit board shown in green on the demonstrative slide 5. That's in
`Figure 3 of Kosuda. And the PPG sensor here is shown by LED 13A and
`photodetector 13B. Acceleration sensor 12 constitutes the motion sensor,
`and there is also a processor located on the circuit board. That's shown by
`data processing circuit 17.
`Turning to slide 6 very quickly, Figure 5 of Kosuda illustrates how
`the processor takes signals from the motion sensor and signals from the PPG
`sensor. And that's the detected pulse wave data. And since we are in a
`hurry, I'll just mention that that's in Figure 5 of Kosuda. Those two signals
`are processed together and outputs a cleaner PPG signal with reduced
`motion artifacts. So that's just like the claim term requires that you are
`taking the motion sensor and the PPG sensor information and using that to
`create a cleaner PPG sensor signal with less noise.
`So Kosuda clearly discloses everything from claim 14 except for
`the non-air light transmissive material between the PPG sensor and the
`window. But that would have been obvious in view of Maekawa. If we turn
`to slide 7, you can see from Figures 2 and 6 of Maekawa that Maekawa has a
`structure that is very similar to Kosuda. You have a main watch case with a
`window on the bottom, and that's what's shown in Figure 2. I'm referring
`here to the 321 slide 7. And Figure 6, which is kind of in the middle of the
`page, shows that you have various components inside the watch case,
`including a PPG sensor.
`If we turn to slide 10, slide 10 shows Figure 10 of Maekawa. It
`shows it inverted from what's in the actual reference, but we show it inverted
`so you can see how closely this maps to Kosuda. Maekawa has a PPG
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`emitter and detector. That's emitter 4 and detector 5, along with a cover
`glass 23 just like Kosuda has. But Maekawa also teaches that it would be
`advantageous to include a fiber optic bundle or this light guide 40 between
`detector 5 and the cover glass. And Maekawa indicates that this light guide
`was added to prevent noise from reaching the PPG sensor's detector. So that
`improves the signal-to-noise ratio, the pulse signal. That light guide
`constitutes the non-air light transmissive material between the PPG sensor
`and the window. So when you incorporate that teaching into Kosuda, the
`combination discloses each and every element of claim 14.
`So with five minutes left, I would like to touch base on a study and
`then also briefly address the motion to amend. On slide 14 we can see Aceti.
`Again, we compare it here to claim 14. Aceti discloses a monitoring device
`100 that's shown in Figure 1. That's designed to be inserted into and wrap
`around a person's ear. A device 100 has two parts. It has a processing
`portion 102 and it has a conducting portion 104. And as you can see from
`the detail in Figure 3 of Aceti, Aceti includes a PPG sensor. It uses the term
`"PTG" instead. It's just another way of saying PPG. And an accelerometer,
`which is the motion sensor.
`Aceti indicates that those sensors can be located -- and referring
`here to slide 14 of petitioner's demonstratives, those sensors can be located
`in processor portion 102 or conductor portion 104. And then Aceti also
`includes a set of light guides. That's what hears the non-air light
`transmissive material that run through the conducting portion from the PPG
`sensor to the end cap 112. And those light guides are covered by a sheath
`which is what you see in Figure 1.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`I want to jump quickly to the point that Valencell has made. They
`have said that this doesn't constitute a housing because conductor portion
`104 is detachable from processor portion 102. But that's simply not the case.
`The construction that we agree with that the Board included in its institution
`decision is that a cover -- is that a housing covers, protects, encloses or
`encloses a device. It's also considered a casing.
`And that's exactly what we have here. We have a conductor
`portion 104, and when we look at the device as a whole, we have to look at
`the device as a whole. The device doesn't include just the processor, which
`would be the case if that's all we were concerned about, then okay, we have
`a processor housing 106. But we are looking at the device as a whole. We
`have light guides embedded there in 104. We have the window included in
`the end cap 112. And when you consider that a housing covers all the
`elements of the device, that's exactly what we have here. We have one
`portion of the housing that covers the processing portion. We have a sheath
`that covers the conducting portion, and then we have the end cap 112 that
`includes the window, as is required by the claim.
`So unless there are any questions on Aceti, I believe that was the
`only argument that the patent owner had against Aceti. So in the remaining
`time I would like to briefly address the motion to amend.
`So if we just put up slide 18 of the 321 demonstratives, you can see
`that Valencell's claim amendments modify the recited processor of claim 14
`in two ways. First the processor extracts physiological and motion
`parameters; and then second, the processor processes data to be output. And
`that output data comprises physiological and motion-related information.
`That output data is parsed out so that an API can use it for an application.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`Right now I'll just address associate claim 22. There's many
`reasons why the Board should not grant Valencell's motion to amend. There
`are a number of procedural issues with the motion that we've addressed in
`our briefs. One issue I do want to touch on is the claim construction. But I
`also want to note at the outset that regardless of claim construction on the
`motion to amend piece is that under either construction the substitute claims
`are clearly shown by the art. We have two grounds, which are Kosuda,
`Maekawa in view of Gupta which addresses this API limitation. And then
`we also illustrate how Aceti, Fricke and Craw render this obvious with Craw
`addressing the API limitations that you have here.
`Now, we understand that in the 319 institution decision there were
`a couple of claims there where the Board addressed a claim construction of
`the term "API" or I guess the whole term is application-specific interface
`(API). And the Board indicated that that needed to be -- you needed to show
`that the data was formatted for a particular application. Petitioners had
`indicated that that API, that acronym that was attached to the phrase
`"application-specific interface" meant that that term was intended to be the
`commonly understood phrase application-specific interface.
`There has been -- you know, we look at that construction as a
`preliminary construction. There has been significant evidence to change that
`preliminary construction, most notably the fact that patent owner in its own
`documents indicated, referred to that term as an application programming
`interface. It spelled it out. And then Valencell's expert himself agreed that
`an application-specific interface, as used in the patent, would have been
`understood by a person of skill in the art to be the same as the well known
`phrase application programming interface.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00321 (Paten
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
