Paper 44
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B21
`_______________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01556 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
` Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 14–21 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,923,941 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’941 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`319. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Valencell, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant inter partes
`review as to the challenged claims.2 Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”). Fitbit, Inc.
`(also “Petitioner”) filed a corresponding Petition (IPR2017-01556, Paper 2),
`accompanied by a Motion for Joinder (IPR2017-01556, Paper 3),
`challenging claims 14–21 of the ’941 patent, and we granted the Motion for
`Joinder and instituted review of the challenged claims based on the
`corresponding Petition (IPR2017-01556, Paper 9).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 23 (“PO Resp.”)), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30 (“Reply”)).
`In addition, Patent Owner filed a contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24
`(“MTA”)), Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 31 (“MTA Opp.”)), Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 32
`(“MTA Reply”)), and Petitioner filed Sur-reply to Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 33
`
`
`2 We instituted inter partes review with respect to each of the claims
`challenged and on all of the grounds asserted in the Petition, and our Final
`Decision addresses the patentability of each of the challenged claims on all
`grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354 (2018).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`(“MTA Sur-Reply”)). A transcript of the oral hearing held on
`February 27, 2018, has been entered into the record as Paper 41 (“Tr.”).3
`Although Patent Owner filed objections to evidence submitted with the
`Petition (Paper 14) and Petitioner filed objections to evidence submitted
`with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 13) and to evidence
`submitted with the Patent Owner Response (Paper 25), neither party filed a
`Motion to Exclude. Consequently, these objections are deemed waived.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) (“A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to
`preserve any objection.”). Petitioner also filed a list of alleged
`misrepresentations of fact and inconsistent statements made by Patent
`Owner in its Preliminary Response. Paper 10. We considered these listed
`items in preparation of our Institution Decision (see Inst. Dec. 10–11), and
`Petitioner does not raise the listed, alleged misrepresentations of fact and
`inconsistent statements in its post-institution filings. Consequently, we do
`not consider them further here.
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14–21 of the ’941 patent are
`unpatentable. We also deny Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to the parties, the ’941 patent is involved in the following
`civil actions: Valencell, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00010
`(E.D.N.C. 2016); Valencell, Inc. v. Bragi Store, LLC et al., Case No. 5-16-
`
`
`3 This was a consolidated hearing with the following related case: IPR2017-
`00319. See Tr. 3:2–5.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`cv-00895 (E.D.N.C. 2016); and Valencell, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 5-16-
`cv-00002 (E.D.N.C. 2016). Pet. 52; Paper 5, 1. Further, the ’941 patent is
`involved in a related petition for inter partes review, Case IPR2017-00319,
`filed by Petitioner on the same day as the instant Petition.
`
`B. The ’941 Patent
`
`The ’941 patent is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Generating
`Data Output Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information,”
`and was filed February 19, 2014, and issued December 30, 2014. Ex. 1001
`at [22], [45], [54]. The ’941 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`Application No. 12/691,388, filed January 21, 2010, now issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111 B2 (id. at [63]), and claims priority to four
`provisional patent applications: U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`Nos. 61/208,567, filed February 25, 2009; 61/208,574, filed February 25,
`2009; 61/212,444, filed April 13, 2009; and 61/274,191, filed August 14,
`2009 (id. at [60]).
`The ’941 patent relates generally to physiological monitoring
`apparatus. Ex. 1001, 1:21–23. Figure 5 of the ’941 patent depicts an
`exemplary embodiment and is reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts a side section view of light-guiding earbud 30 for a headset.
`In particular, earbud 30 includes light guide or cover 18 that serves the
`function of a housing. Id. at 16:16–19. Light guide 18 includes a plurality
`of windows 18w formed in cladding material 21 on outer surface 18a of
`cover 18. Id. at 16:19–21. Light 111 emitted from light emitter 24 passes
`through windows 18w and into the wearer’s body, and scattered light 110
`returning from the wearer’s body passes into light guide 18 through
`windows 18w and is directed to light detector 26. Id. at 16:21–24. In other
`embodiments, earbud housing and light guide 18 may be separate
`components, for example, as shown in Figure 3, which depicts cover 18
`surrounding housing 16. Id. at 14:6–10. In addition, light guide 18 of
`Figure 5 is surrounded by layer 29 of light transmissive material. Id. at
`16:30–31. One or more lenses 29L are formed in layer 29 and are in optical
`communication with respective windows 18w in the light guide 18, and
`lenses 29L are configured to collect returning, scattered light 110 and to
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`direct scattered light 110 into light guiding region 19 and to light
`detector 26. Id. at 16:31–41. An earbud, such as earbud 30, may integrate a
`sensor module containing a plurality of sensor elements for measuring
`physiological information and at least one noise source for measuring noise
`information and may include a microprocessor that is in electrical
`communication with the sensor module or modules. Id. at 3:46–55, 4:21–25.
`In the apparatus described in the ’941 patent, photoplethysmography
`(“PPG”) signals may be pre-conditioned by the microprocessor to reduce
`motion artifacts and signal noise. Id. at 4:11–17, 4:25–32, 30:44–48; see id.
`at 32:1–15, 3:47–55. In particular, the physiological information may be
`filtered to remove signal noise by using various, known signal processing
`techniques. See id. at 3:56–67. Thus, the ’941 patent discloses apparatus for
`removing motion-related noise artifacts, such as subject footstep noise. See
`id. at 3:65–4:5; 31:18–19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 14 is the sole, challenged independent claim of the ’941 patent.
`Each of claims 15–21 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 14
`is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized.
`14. A wearable device, comprising:
`a housing; and
`a chipset enclosed within the housing, the chipset
`comprising at least one PPG sensor, at least one motion sensor,
`and at least one signal processor configured to process signals
`from the at least one motion sensor and signals from the at least
`one PPG sensor to reduce motion artifacts from the PPG signals;
`wherein the housing comprises at least one window that
`optically exposes the at least one PPG sensor to a body of a
`subject wearing the device, and wherein the housing comprises
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`non-air light transmissive material in optical communication
`with the at least one PPG sensor and the window.
`Id. at 32:1–15 (emphasis added).
`
`D. Applied References and Declaration
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration in support
`of its asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Exhibit
`1003
`1016
`
`1025
`
`1027
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`References and Declaration
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105556 A1 to
`Fricke et al., filed September 29, 2008, published
`April 23, 2009 (“Fricke”)
`Hyonyoung Han et al., Development of a wearable health
`monitoring device with motion artifact reduced algorithm,
`International Conference on Control, Automation and
`Systems, IEEE (2007) (“Han”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0186387 A1 to
`Kosuda et al., published September 23, 2004 (“Kosuda”)
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2005/270544 A
`to Maekawa, published October 6, 2005
`Certified English-language translation of Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 2005/270544 to Maekawa,
`published October 6, 2005 (“Maekawa”)4
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/059870 A1 to
`Aceti, published March 17, 2005 (“Aceti”)
`G. Comtois & Y. Mendelson, A Comparative Evaluation of
`Adaptive Noise Cancellation Algorithms for Minimizing
`Motion Artifacts in a Forehead-Mounted Wearable Pulse
`Oximeter, IEEE (2007) (“Comtois”)
`
`Pet. v–vii.
`As noted above, the ’941 patent issued claiming benefit from
`U.S. provisional patent applications having filing dates as early as
`
`
`4 Citations to Maekawa are to this English-language translation.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`February 25, 2009. Ex. 1001 at [60]. Each of the applied references has an
`effective date prior to February 25, 2009. See Pet. 8–9.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserted the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Kosuda and Maekawa
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 14, 15, and 21
`Kosuda, Maekawa, and
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 18–20
`Han
`Aceti and Fricke
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 14–19 and 21
`Aceti, Fricke, and Comtois 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 20
`Pet. 7. We instituted inter partes review of all of the challenged claims and
`on all of these asserted grounds.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as they would have been understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for
`a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner sought construction of five (5) claim terms in its Petition.
`Pet. 11–14. Patent Owner challenged some of these constructions in its
`Preliminary Response and sought construction of the additional claim term
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`“PPG sensor.” Prelim. Resp. 14–17. In the Institution Decision, we
`proposed constructions for these six (6) terms. Inst. Dec. 7–11. In the
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contests the preliminary construction
`of the term “PPG sensor,” but does not challenge the constructions of the
`other terms addressed in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 7–9; see
`Paper 12, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”).
`Consequently, for this Decision, we adopt our preliminary constructions of
`the terms: “body,” “headset,” “housing,” “chipset,” and “window,” and
`address the construction of the term “PPG sensor,” below.
`
`1. “body” (Claims 14–21)
`
` We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`“body” is “the body of a subject wearing the device.” Inst. Dec. 7–8.
`
`2. “headset” (Claim 17)
`
`We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“headset” is “any type of device or earpiece that may be attached to or near
`the ear of a user, including peripheral devices.” Id. at 8.
`
`3. “housing” (claims 14–21)
`
`We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“housing” is “one or more parts that covers, encloses, supports, or protects;
`[a] casing.” Id. at 9.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`4. “chipset” (claims 14–21)
`
` We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`“chipset” is “a collection of one or more chips or integrated circuits.” Id.
`
`5. “window” (claims 14–21)
`
` We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`“window” is “an opening through which light can pass.” Id. at 9–10. We
`note that the Specification of the ‘941 patent refers to “windows 18w” and to
`“openings 18w,” from which we conclude that either an “opening” or a
`“window” with a transparent covering may be the recited “window.” See
`Ex. 1001, 16:18–23.
`
`6. “PPG sensor” (claims 14–21)
`
`In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of the term “PPG sensor” as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term. Id. at 10–11. In the Patent Owner Response,
`Patent Owner proposes a slight modification to this interpretation (PO
`Resp. 9), to which Petitioner does not object (see Reply 1–4). Patent Owner
`now contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “PPG
`sensor” is “an optical sensor which obtains a plethysmogram that results
`from blood flow modulations caused by the subject’s heartbeat.” PO
`Resp. 9 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2005, 1. We agree that the term should
`include express reference to “an optical sensor,” rather than merely to “an
`optically obtained plethysmogram.” Inst. Dec. 10; see Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:6.
`We determine that our previous construction, as modified by Patent Owner,
`is the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`7. Other Claim Terms
`
`Neither party offers specific interpretations of other terms in the
`challenged claims. See Pet. 14 (“All other claim terms should be given their
`plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable construction.”).
`Only terms which are in controversy in this proceeding need to be construed,
`and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See, e.g.,
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))). Consequently, except as noted below, no other claim
`terms require express interpretation.
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Kosuda and Maekawa,
`Alone or in Combination with Han
`
`1. Overview
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 14, 15, and 21 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kosuda and Maekawa, and claims 18–20
`are unpatentable as obvious over Kosuda and Maekawa in combination with
`Han. See supra Section I.E. To support its argument, Petitioner provides a
`mapping of limitations of claims 14, 15, and 21 to structures taught or
`suggested by Kosuda and Maekawa and claims 18–20 to structures taught or
`suggested by Kosuda, Maekawa, and Han. Pet. 14–31. Petitioner also cites
`Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s Declaration for support. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–101. Patent
`Owner limits its response to these arguments to the challenges to
`independent claim 14. PO Resp. 1 (“Grounds 1 and 2 fail because the
`proposed combination of [Kosuda] and [Maekawa] suffers from at least two
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`defects, each of which is fatal to Petitioner’s argument of unpatentability of
`claims 14 and all the claims that depend from it.”), 11; see Reply 12.
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art;5 and (4), when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.6 Graham v.
`
`
`5 Petitioner proposes an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Pet. 11; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, and
`Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Pollonini, exceeds this assessed level.
`Ex. 1004; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–11. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`assessment or propose an alternative assessment. See MTA 11. To the
`extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`6 In the instituted proceeding, Patent Owner does not raise arguments or
`present evidence based on the presence of such objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. See In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289, 1299 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (“The party seeking the patent bears the burden to overcome the
`prima facie case of obviousness with evidence of secondary considerations,
`such as commercial success.”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00087, 2015 WL 1546574, at *11 (PTAB 2015) (“Although it is
`Patent Owner's burden to introduce evidence supporting such objective
`indicia, see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the ultimate
`burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner, see 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e).”), aff’d, In re Nuvasive, Inc., 689 Fed. Appx. 954 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`but see Prelim. Resp. 4–6. Therefore, this factor does not play into our
`analysis of Petitioner’s challenges to any claim on any ground.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Nevertheless, the Supreme
`Court cautions us against “the temptation to read into the prior art the
`teachings of the invention in issue.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 36.
`We begin our analysis of these grounds of unpatentability with a
`review of the applied references.
`
`2. Kosuda (Ex. 1027)
`
`Kosuda’s pulse measurement device includes (1) a pulse wave sensor
`to detect a pulse wave from the wrist, (2) a motion sensor to detect a body
`motion component, and (3) a signal processing circuit to remove body
`motion components contained in the pulse wave signal and to calculate a
`pulse rate of the user. Ex. 1027 ¶ 10, Fig. 2. In particular, the motion sensor
`may detect body motion along three orthoganal axes. Id. ¶ 138, Fig. 5.
`Thus, the pulse rate may be calculated accurately by proportionally
`subtracting body motion components detected by a triaxial acceleration
`sensor from the output of the pulse wave sensor. Id.
`Kosuda’s Figure 3, as annotated by Petitioner, is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 16. Figure 3 depicts device main body 10A, including back lid 14 and
`transparent glass 13C, which is held against a subject’s wrist (not shown) by
`wristband 10B. Ex. 1027 ¶ 140. “The transparent glass 13C is fixed by
`means of a back lid 14 as a component of the device main body 10A.” Id.
`¶ 141. The reverse side of main body 10A includes pulse wave sensor 13
`and acceleration (body motion) sensor 12. Id. ¶ 140.
`
`Pulse wave sensor 13 may include light emitting diode (“LED”) 13A
`(depicted in red) and photo detector (“PD”) 13B (depicted in orange). Id.
`¶ 141. LED 13A emits light, and PD 13B receives detection light via
`transparent glass 13C (depicted in yellow), which is fixed to the wrist-side of
`main body 10A. Id. LED 13A, PD 13B, and acceleration sensor 12
`(depicted in blue) may be connected to mainboard 16 (depicted in green).
`Id. ¶¶ 142, 143. Further, a central processing unit (“CPU”) and other
`integrated circuit (“IC”) circuits (not shown) may be mounted on
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`mainboard 16 and may comprise processing circuit 17 (depicted in purple).
`Id. ¶ 142.
`Kosuda’s data processing circuit 17 may utilize adaptive filter 30 to
`process signals from the acceleration sensor and the pulse wave sensor to
`reduce motion artifacts in the pulse wave signals. Id. ¶¶ 145, 152–158,
`Fig. 5. Adaptive filter 30 has filter coefficient generating section 31 and
`synthesizer 32. Id. ¶ 154. Filter coefficient generating section 31 applies
`adaptive filter coefficient h based on data previously output. Id. ¶ 155,
`Fig. 5. By applying the adaptive filter coefficient h to a simulated low-
`frequency signal and to body motion component detection signals, filter
`coefficient generating section 31 generates body motion removal data h(x),
`h(y), and h(z). Id. Synthesizer 32 subtracts body motion removal data h(x),
`h(y), and h(z) from the detected pulse wave data (i.e., pulse wave
`components and body motion components) and extracts wave components
`e(n). Id.
`
`3. Maekawa (Ex. 1029, Ex. 1030)
`
`Maekawa also teaches a wrist mounted, physiological information
`measuring device that determines information, such as a pulse rate.
`Ex. 1030 ¶ 20. Maekawa’s Figure 10 is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts a physiological information measuring device including
`physiological sensor 6, including LED 4 that emits light toward the wrist,
`photo diode (“PD”) 5 that receives light backscattered from the wrist, and
`data processor (not shown) that determines a pulse rate based on the amount
`of light received by sensor 6. Id. ¶ 21; see id. ¶ 23, Figs. 5 (depicting sensor
`6 in housing 2) and 7 (depicting data processor 7). Further, Figure 10
`depicts that PD 5 and cover glass 23 are separated, and a bundle of optical
`fibers 40 extend in the gap between them. Id. ¶ 48. One end 40a of optical
`fibers 40 is adjacent to cover glass 23, and other end 40b is adjacent to light
`receiving surface 5a of PD 5. Id. Optical fibers 40 are arranged, so that
`light passing along the surface B of the wrist is reflected by the outer
`circumferential surface of optical fibers 40. Id.; see id. ¶ 14.
`Light that only passes along the surface of the skin of the living
`body does not contain very much physiological information
`whereby blocking this light makes it so that most of the light that
`enters the optical fiber, propagates in the optical fiber, and is lead
`to the light receiving part is light that has passed deeply through
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`the living body under the inner skin, in other words, light that
`contains a lot of physiological information.
`Id. ¶¶ 15 (emphases added), 48. Thus, light reflected back through the wrist
`contains more useful physiological information (i.e., light that has penetrated
`more deeply into the wrist) and is guided to PD 5 through optical fibers 40.
`Id. ¶¶ 14–15, 48. Because light passing along surface B is considered noise,
`blocking such light improves the pulse signal’s signal-to-noise ratio. Id.
`¶ 47 (“Therefore, when measuring physiological information, light
`propagating in the cover glass 23 that becomes light noise can be blocked
`enabling improving the [signal-to-noise (“SN”)] ratio for generating a pulse
`signal.”), Fig. 9 (depicting reflective body 23A to preventing light
`propagating in cover glass 23 from reaching PD 5).
`
`4. Han (Ex. 1025)
`
`Han teaches “a real-time, wearable and motion artifact reduced health
`monitoring device.” Ex. 1025, Abstract, Fig. 1. The wearable device
`includes a “photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor, 3-axis accelerometer,
`microprocessor and wireless module.” Id. Han’s PPG sensor may operate
`in infrared wavelengths. Id. at pp. 1582. Motion artifacts, such as those
`created by finger movements, may cause the PPG sensor to acquire distorted
`heart beat signals. Id., Abstract. Han teaches active noise cancellation,
`whereby a motion sensor obtains body movement information, and an active
`noise cancellation algorithm in an adaptive filter removes motion noises. Id.
`Han’s processor conducts pre-processing on raw PPG signals. Id. at
`pp. 1582.
`The raw signal demands a low pass filter for reducing high
`frequency noise and [a] high pass filter for rejecting a DC
`component [of the PPG signal] to enhance the AC component.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
` . . . The filters are designed as a 0.5–3 Hz band pass filter, and
`totally fourth order analog active filter and digital filter are used
`in this signal processing.
`Id. Han further teaches that Normalized Least Mean Square (“NLMS”)
`adaptive filters may be used due to their fast processing speeds and low
`order filter coefficients. Id.
`Han’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts
`a block diagram of an active noise cancellation algorithm, which
`reconstructs a raw pulsation signal (sk) from the corrupted signal
`(dk), using measurable noise signal (xk). Here, PPG and body
`motion data correspond to dk and xk respectively. This research
`predominantly used 3-axis accelerometer signals (xk) for body
`motion data (nk).
`Id. Such active noise cancellation algorithm techniques may remove motion
`artifacts due to walking and running. Id. at pp. 1584, Table 2.
`
`5. Analysis
`a. Claim 14
`
`Petitioner maps the limitations of claim 14 to the teachings of Kosuda.
`Pet. 20–27. In particular, Petitioner argues that Kosuda teaches a wearable
`device, such as the wrist-mounted, pulse measurement device 10, depicted in
`Kosuda’s Figures 2 and 3. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1027, Figs. 2 and 3); see id.
`¶ 139; Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. The wearable device recited in claim 14, comprises
`(1) “a housing,” and (2) “a chipset enclosed within the housing, the chipset
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`comprising at least one PPG sensor, at least one motion sensor, and at least
`one signal processor.” Ex. 1001, 32:2–5. Referring to Kosuda’s Figure 3,
`Petitioner argues that Kosuda teaches housing comprising main body 10A
`including back lid 14, encompassing pulse wave sensor 13, triaxial
`acceleration sensor 12, and microprocessor unit (”MPU”) 24 and data
`processing circuit 17.7 Pet. 20–24 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 137, 138, 140–142,
`146); see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–82.
`
`Petitioner argues that Kosuda’s pulse wave sensor 13 teaches “at least
`one PPG sensor.” Pet. 23; see supra Section II.A.6 (modifying construction
`of “PPG sensor” to describe an “optical sensor”). In particular, Petitioner
`argues that pulse wave sensor 13 includes the components of a PPG sensor,
`namely, LED 13A and PD 13B. Pet. 23.
`Further, Petitioner argues that Kosuda’s acceleration sensor 12
`teaches “at least one motion sensor.” Pet. 24. In particular, Petitioner
`argues that “[a]cceleration sensor 12 detects body motion by directly sensing
`motion of the acceleration sensor itself” and that Kosuda teaches other types
`of motion sensors, such as angle sensors and blood vessel simulation
`sensors.” Id. (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 137, 309, 452, Figs. 66A (angle sensor
`122) and 113 (blood vessel simulation sensor 232); see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 82.
`In addition, Petitioner argues that Kosuda’s MPU 24 and/or data
`processing circuit 17, teach(es) “at least one signal processor configured to
`process signals from the at least one motion sensor and signals from the at
`
`
`7 As Patent Owner notes, the Institution decision incorrectly referred to
`“housing 2” and “processor 7.” PO Resp. 16 (quoting Inst. Dec. 17). Those
`typographical errors are corrected here, and Petitioner’s mapping of the
`limitations of claim 14 onto Kosuda is clarified.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`least one PPG sensor to reduce motion artifacts from the PPG signals”
`(Ex. 1001, 32:5–9). Pet 24 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 135–137, 142, 145, 154–158,
`Figs. 3–5); see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–85. In particular, Kosuda teaches that
`the body motion components originating in the veins are detected
`by a triaxial acceleration sensor, and the pulse rate is accurately
`detected based on a signal that is free of the effect of venous
`blood by subtracting the detected output from the output of the
`pulse wave sensor in a specific proportion.
`Ex. 1027 ¶ 138. Thus, Kosuda teaches that signals from the PPG sensor and
`the motion sensor are processed to reduce motion artifacts from the PPG
`signals. Pet. 24; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65, 84–85.
`
`Referring to Figure 3 (reproduced above), Kosuda teaches that each of
`acceleration sensor 12, pulse wave sensor 13, and data processing circuit 17
`may be mounted on or physically connected to mainboard 19. Ex. 1027
`¶¶ 144–145, Fig. 3. Thus, Petitioner argues that these components of
`Kosuda teach “a chipset enclosed within the housing.” Pet. 21–23; see
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75– 78; supra Section II.A.4. As noted above, “[t]he
`transparent glass 13C is fixed by means of a back lid 14 as a component of
`the device main body 10A.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 141. Thus, main body 10A, back
`lid 14, and glass 13C together may form the “housing.” Pet. 25 (“Kosuda
`discloses that the housing (i.e., main body/watchcase 10A) comprises a
`window (i.e., transparent glass 13C in the opening in back lid 14) that
`optically exposes the PPG sensor (i.e., pulse wave sensor 13) to a body (i.e.,
`user’s arm 11) of a subject wearing the device.” (citations omitted)); see
`Reply 1–2.
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that Kosuda’s transparent glass 13C teaches
`the at least one window in the recited housing. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1027
`¶¶ 139–141, Fig. 3); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 86; supra Section II.A.5. Nevertheless,
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that “Kosuda does not explicitly state that a non-air
`light transmissive material exists between sensor 13 and transparent glass
`13C.” Pet. 26. Petitioner argues, however, that “Maekawa teaches placing a
`non-air light transmissive material (i.e., optical fibers 40) in optical
`communication with the PPG sensor (i.e., pulse sensor 6) and the window
`(i.e., cover glass 23).” Id. Therefore, Petitioner argues that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of
`Kosuda and Maekawa “to place Maekawa’s non-air light transmissive
`material (such as an optical fiber) in optical communication with Kosuda’s
`PPG sensor (i.e., pulse sensor 13) and window (i.e., transparent glass 13C)
`to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the received pulse signal.” Id. at 26–
`27 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 47, 48, Figs. 9 and 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89.
`As noted above, Maekawa teaches that it is desirable to prevent light
`propagating in the cover glass or only passing along the surface of the skin
`from entering the photo diode. See supra Section II.B.3. Dr. Sarrafzadeh
`testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`signal-to-noise ratio would be improved by preventing such light from being
`received by the Maekawa’s photo diode or Kosuda’s pulse wave sensor. See
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38, 69–71, 88–90; Ex. 1070, 150:17–153:9. Because Kosuda
`and Maekawa are directed to physiological monitoring devices and to the
`extraction of physiological and activity related information from subjects, it
`is alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
`use a technique known to improve a similar device to improve Kosuda’s
`monitoring device in a similar way. Pet. 27; Reply 4–9; see KSR, 550 U.