Paper 11
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 14–21 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.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless
`. . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 14–21 of the ’941 patent.
`
`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-
`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.1
`
`
`1 Neither party identified the related petition in its Mandatory Notices or in
`an updated Mandatory Notice. We caution each party to comply with its
`obligation to update its Mandatory Notices, as required. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(a)(3); Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48759–60
`(Aug. 12, 2012); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a)(1).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`B. The ’941 Patent
`
`The ’941 patent is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Generating
`Data Output Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information,”
`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.
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`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 subject’s body, and scattered light 110
`returning from the subject’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
`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, 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 14 is the challenged independent claim of the ’941 patent.
`Each of claims 15–21 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 1
`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
`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
`1004
`1016
`
`1025
`
`References and Declaration
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`Curriculum Vitae 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”)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`1027
`
`References and Declaration
`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”)2
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/059870 A1 to
`Aceti, published March 17, 2005
`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”)
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`Pet. v–vii.
`As noted above, the ’941 patent issued claiming benefit from
`U.S. provisional patent applications having filing dates as early as 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 asserts 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.
`
`
`2 Citations to Maekawa are to this English-language translation.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`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 would be 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).
`
`1. “body” (Claims 14–21)
`
`Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’941 patent provides an
`express definition of the term “body.” Pet. 12. In particular, the
`Specification states that:
`The term “body” refers to the body of a subject (human or
`animal) that may wear a headset incorporating one or more light-
`guiding earbuds, according to embodiments of the present
`invention.
`Ex. 1001, 10:19–22. Therefore, Petitioner argues that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the term “body” is “the portion of the body of a
`human or animal that may wear a headset.” Pet. 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 55.
` Patent Owner contends that this construction is improper and that the
`term “body” properly is construed as “the body of a subject.” Prelim.
`Resp. 15. In particular, Patent Owner contends that, because dependent
`claim 17 refers to a “headset,” it would be improper to limit the construction
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`of “body,” which appears in claim 14, to the requirements of dependent
`claim 17. Id.
` In construing this limitation, we apply “the broadest reasonable
`meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any enlightenment by
`way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
`description contained in the . . . specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
`1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Because claim 1 recites “a body of
`a subject wearing the device,” we are persuaded that the portion of the
`Specification cited by Petitioner only provides an example of a device worn
`by the subject. This is consistent with the limitation of the device of claim 1
`to an “earbud” in claim 16 and a headset” in claim 17. Ex. 1001, 32:20–23.
`Therefore, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the term “body” is “the body of a subject
`wearing the device.”
`
`2. “headset” (Claim 17)
`
`Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’941 patent provides an
`
`express definition of the term “headset.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:49–55).
`Thus, Petitioner argues that 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. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56).
`Patent Owner does not contest this construction (see Prelim. Resp. 14), and,
`based on the description in the Specification and for purposes of this
`Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the term “headset.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`3. “housing” (claims 14–21)
`
`Petitioner argues that the term “housing” means “one or more parts
`
`that covers, encloses, supports, or protects; casing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 57). Patent Owner does not contest this construction (see Prelim.
`Resp. 14), and, based on the description in the Specification (see, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 2:35–49) and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “housing.”
`
`4. “chipset” (claims 14–21)
`
` Petitioner argues that the term “chipset” means “a collection of one or
`more chips or integrated circuits.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). Patent
`Owner does not contest this construction (see Prelim. Resp. 14), and, based
`on the description in the Specification (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:31–34, Fig. 21)
`and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s construction as the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “chipset.”
`
`5. “window” (claims 14–21)
`
` Petitioner argues that the term “window” means “an aperture or
`opening; the framework enclosing such an opening or aperture; a
`transmissive pane within such an aperture or opening.” Pet. 14 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Patent Owner disagrees and contends that “the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of window is ‘an opening through which light can
`pass.’” Prelim. Resp. 16. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that this
`interpretation is consistent with the Specification which states
`the light guide 18 includes multiple windows 18w formed in the
`cladding material 21 on the outer surface 18a of the cover and
`through which light emitted by the light emitter 24 passes and
`multiple windows 18w through which scattered light 110 passes
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`into the light guide 18 to be directed to the light detector 26.
`These openings 18w may extend circumferentially around the
`light guide.
`Ex. 1001, 16:18–23 (describing the embodiment of Figure 5, emphasis
`added). Because, on this record, we find Patent Owner’s broader
`interpretation to be consistent with the Specification, for purposes of this
`Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term “window.”
`
`6. “PPG sensor” (claims 14–21)
`
`Patent Owner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`the term “PPG sensor” is “an optically obtained plethysmogram that results
`from blood flow modulations caused by the subject’s heartbeat.” Prelim.
`Resp. 16. Specifically, Patent Owner notes that:
`Pulse oximetry is widely used in health facilities to monitor
`physiological vital signs. It is based on the principle of
`photoplethysmography (PPG), an optical technique to measure
`local variations of blood volume in tissues. Two light-emitting
`diodes (LEDs) illuminate the tissue and a photo detector detects
`the light reflected by the tissue. The intensity of the light
`detected varies with each heart beat as the blood volume changes
`over time. Blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) is calculated by
`measuring the difference in absorption of oxygenated and
`deoxygenated hemoglobin at two distinct wavelengths, red (660
`nm) and infrared (940 nm). Oxygenated blood preferably
`absorbs infrared light and transmits red light and deoxygenated
`blood has the inverted absorption characteristics.
`Ex. 2005, 1 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not propose a construction for
`this term (see Prelim. Resp. 17), but instead argues that Patent Owner has
`proposed inconsistent constructions in the instant proceeding and in a related
`proceeding, IPR2017-00319. Ex. 1067, 6:5–16; see Paper 10, 1. Because
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`claim terms generally are used consistently throughout a patent and because
`the term “PPG sensor” appears in the claims of the ’941 patent challenged in
`IPR2017-00319, we adopt the same construction for this term in both
`preliminary proceedings. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d
`1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[A] claim term should be construed
`consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other
`claims of the same patent.”). Thus, on this record and for purposes of this
`Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “PPG sensor,” as the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. See IPR2017-00319,
`Paper 10, 23–24 (adopting this construction for “PPG sensor”).
`
`7. Other Claim Terms
`
`Neither party offers specific constructions 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
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘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)). For purposes of this Decision, no
`other claim terms require express construction.
`
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`are unpatentable as obvious over Kosuda and Maekawa in combination with
`Han. See supra Section I.E. To support its argument, Petitioner provides a
`detailed 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.
`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;3 and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. 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 art.
`
`
`3 Petitioner proposes an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Pet. 11; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, exceeds
`this assessed level. Ex. 1004. At this time, Patent Owner does not propose
`an alternative assessment. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent
`necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`Pet. 16. Figure 3 depicts device main body 10A, which is held against a
`subject’s wrist (not shown) by wristband 10B. Ex. 1027 ¶ 140. The reverse
`side of main body 10A includes pulse wave sensor 13 and acceleration
`(body motion) sensor 12. Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`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
`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,
`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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`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,
`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 because such light does not contain useful physiological
`information. Id.; see id. ¶¶ 14–15. Light reflected back through the wrist
`contains 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,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`blocking such light improves the pulse signal’s signal-to-noise ratio. Id.
`¶¶ 47–48.
`
`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 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
`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. .
`. . 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.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`
`
`
`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 1584, Table 2.
`
`5. Analysis
`a. Claim 14
`
`Petitioner provides a detailed mapping of the limitations of claim 14
`on 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 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 2 encompassing pulse wave sensor 13, acceleration
`sensor 12, and processor 7. Pet. 20–24 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 137, 138, 140–
`142); see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–82.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`Petitioner argues that Kosuda’s pulse wave sensor 13 teaches “at least
`
`one PPG sensor.” Pet. 23; see supra Section II.A.6. In particular, Petitioner
`argues that pulse wave sensor 13 includes the components of a PPG sensor,
`namely, LED 13A and PD 13B. Id.
`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, including data
`processing circuit 17, teaches “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”
`(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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`¶¶ 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.
`
`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,
`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 relevant 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 ¶ 48; Ex. 1003
`¶ 89. Specifically, 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 relevant 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. Id. at 27; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“For the same reason,
`if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`beyond his or her skill.”); In re Ethicon, 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already
`generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as
`the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”).
`
`b. Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the
`
`combined teachings of Kosuda and Maekawa render the apparatus of
`challenged claim 14 obvious for at least three reasons.4 See Prelim.
`Resp. 24–27, 28–30, 36–39. First, Patent Owner contends Kosuda does not
`teach at least one PPG sensor, as recited in claim 14. Id. at 24–27. In
`particular, Patent Owner contends that, although Kosuda’s pulse wave
`sensor 13 includes components, such as LED 13A and PD 13B, that
`commonly are used in PPG sensors, because “those components are used in
`countless applications besides PPG sensors,” the presence of similar
`components is not sufficient to teach a PPG sensor. Id. at 25–26. Patent
`Owner acknowledges that Kosuda’s pulse wave sensor 13 has components
`associated with PPG sensors and attains physiological measurements
`commonly performed by PPG sensors, but Patent Owner notes that Kosuda’s
`disclosure does not exclude the possibility that Kosuda’s pulse wave sensor
`
`
`4 Although Patent Owner directs its contentions against Petitioner’s
`arguments with respect to claim 14, we understand Patent Owner also to
`assert these contentions against Petitioner’s arguments with respect to
`claims 15 and 21. See Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Thus, if Patent Owner
`demonstrates that Kosuda fails to disclose any of limitations [14.1] – [14.6],
`Grounds 1 and 2 must fail.”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00321
`Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
`was a Pulse Transit Time (PTT) sensor or a Laser Doppler Velocimetry
`(LDV) sensor. Id. at 26.
`Although Kosuda does not describe pulse wave sensor 13 expressly as
`a photoplethysmographic sensor, Kosuda’s description of sensor 13 is
`consistent with the components (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30, 34) and operation (see
`Pet. 1–3 (citing Ex. 1018, 2:60–3:22)) of PPG sensors. Dr. Sarrafzadeh
`testifies that “[b]ecause both the components,
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
