IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,886,269
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................ 2
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ............................................. 4
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) .................................... 4
`A.
`Citation of Prior Art ........................................................................... 4
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge ................................................. 6
`C.
`The Board should institute all grounds because doing so
`would not be unduly burdensome. ..................................................... 7
`The ’269 Patent ............................................................................................. 9
`A. Overview of the ’269 Patent .............................................................. 9
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History ............................................... 11
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 13
`D.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 13
`“generally cylindrical” (claim 1) .............................................. 14
`1.
`2.
`“cladding material” (claim 1) .................................................... 15
`3.
`“near” (claim 1) ......................................................................... 16
`Overview of the Applied References .......................................................... 17
`A. Asada ................................................................................................ 17
`B.
`Goodman .......................................................................................... 21
`C.
`Hicks ................................................................................................. 22
`D. Hannula ............................................................................................ 24
`E.
`Delonzor ........................................................................................... 25
`F.
`Al-Ali ................................................................................................ 26
`VII. Ground 1: Asada Renders Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 Obvious .......................... 27
`A. Asada Renders Independent Claim 1 Obvious. ............................... 28
`1. Asada discloses “[a] monitoring device” [1P]. ......................... 28
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`2. Asada discloses “a band configured to at least partially
`encircle a portion of the body of a subject” [1.1]. .................... 28
`3. Asada discloses “a generally cylindrical outer body
`portion and a generally cylindrical inner body portion
`secured together in concentric relationship” [1.2]. ................... 29
`4. Asada discloses “the inner body portion comprising light
`transmissive material, and having outer [and] inner
`surface[s]” [1.3]. ....................................................................... 30
`5. Asada discloses “a layer of cladding material near the
`inner body portion inner surface” [1.4]. ................................... 30
`6. Asada discloses “at least one window formed in the
`cladding material that serves as a light-guiding interface
`to the body of the subject” [1.5]. .............................................. 31
`7. Asada discloses “at least one optical emitter and at least
`one optical detector attached to the band” [1.6]. ...................... 31
`8. Asada discloses “wherein the light transmissive material
`is in optical communication with the at least one optical
`emitter and the at least one optical detector and is
`configured to deliver light from the at least one optical
`emitter to one or more locations of the body of the
`subject via the at least one window and to collect light
`from one or more locations of the body of the subject via
`the at least one window and deliver the collected light to
`the at least one optical detector” [1.7]. ..................................... 32
`Asada Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .................................................... 33
`B.
`Asada Renders Claim 6 Obvious. .................................................... 34
`C.
`D. Asada Renders Claim 7 Obvious. .................................................... 34
`VIII. Ground 2: The Combination of Asada and Hicks Renders Claim 3
`Obvious ....................................................................................................... 35
`A. Motivation for Combining Asada and Hicks ................................... 35
`B.
`The Combination of Asada and Hicks Renders Claim 3
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 37
`Ground 3: The Combination of Asada and Hannula Renders Claims
`4 and 5 Obvious .......................................................................................... 38
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`A. Motivation for Combining Asada and Hannula ............................... 38
`B.
`The combination of Asada and Hannula renders claim 4
`obvious. ............................................................................................ 39
`The Combination of Asada and Hannula Renders Claim 5
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 40
`1. The combination of Asada and Hannula discloses that
`“the at least one optical detectors” [5.1]. .................................. 40
`2. The combination of Asada and Hannula discloses “a
`signal processor” [5.2]. ............................................................. 40
`3. The combination of Asada and Hannula discloses “at
`least a portion of light reflected by the light reflective
`material and detected by the second optical detector is
`processed by the signal processor as a noise reference for
`attenuating motion noise from signals produced by the
`first optical detector” [5.3]. ....................................................... 41
`Ground 4: The Combination of Asada and Delonzor Renders Claim
`8 Obvious .................................................................................................... 42
`A. Motivation for Combining Asada and Delonzor.............................. 42
`B.
`The Combination of Asada and Delonzor Renders Claim 8
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 44
`1. The combination of Asada and Delonzor discloses that
`“the at least one window comprises at least two
`windows” [8.1]. ......................................................................... 44
`2. The combination of Asada and Delonzor discloses “light
`blocking material positioned between the at least one
`optical emitter and the at least one optical detector such
`that the at least one optical emitter and the at least one
`optical detector are not [82]. ..................................................... 44
`Ground 5: The Combination of Asada and Al-Ali Renders Claims 9
`and 10 Obvious ........................................................................................... 45
`A. Motivation for Combining Asada and Al-Ali .................................. 45
`B.
`The Combination of Asada and Al-Ali Renders Claim 9
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 46
`
`iii
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`C.
`
`The Combination of Asada and Al-Ali Renders Claim 10
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 47
`XII. Ground 6: Goodman Renders Claims 1 and 2 Obvious.............................. 47
`A. Goodman Renders Independent Claim 1 Obvious. .......................... 47
`1. Goodman discloses “[a] monitoring device” [1P]. ................... 47
`2. Goodman discloses “a band configured to at least
`partially encircle a portion of the body of a subject” [1.1]. ...... 48
`3. Goodman discloses “a generally cylindrical outer body
`portion and a generally cylindrical inner body portion
`secured together in concentric relationship” [1.2]. ................... 49
`4. Goodman discloses “the inner body portion comprising
`light transmissive material, and having outer [and] inner
`surface[s]” [1.3]. ....................................................................... 51
`5. Goodman discloses “a layer of cladding material near the
`inner body portion inner surface” [1.4]. ................................... 51
`6. Goodman discloses “at least one window formed in the
`cladding material that serves as a light-guiding interface
`to the body of the subject” [1.5]. .............................................. 53
`7. Goodman discloses “at least one optical emitter and at
`least one optical detector attached to the band” [1.6]. .............. 53
`8. Goodman discloses “wherein the light transmissive
`material is in optical communication with the at least one
`optical emitter and the at least one optical detector and is
`configured to deliver light from the at least one optical
`emitter to one or more locations of the body of the
`subject via the at least one window and to collect light
`from one or more locations of the body of the subject via
`the at least one window and deliver the collected light to
`the at least one optical detector” [1.7]. ..................................... 54
`Goodman Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .............................................. 55
`B.
`XIII. Ground 7: The Combination of Goodman and Hicks Renders Claim
`3 Obvious .................................................................................................... 55
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman and Hicks ............................. 55
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`The Combination of Goodman and Hicks Render Claim 3
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 57
`XIV. Ground 8: The Combination of Goodman and Hannula Renders
`Claim 4 Obvious ......................................................................................... 58
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman and Hannula ......................... 58
`B.
`The Combination of Goodman and Hannula Renders Claim 4
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 59
`XV. Ground 9: The Combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada
`Renders Claim 5 Obvious ........................................................................... 60
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman, Hannula, and Asada ............ 60
`B.
`The Combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada Renders
`Claim 5 Obvious. .............................................................................. 61
`1. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada
`discloses that “the at least one optical detector comprises
`first and second optical detectors” [5.1]. .................................. 61
`2. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada
`discloses “a signal processor” [5.2]. ......................................... 62
`3. The combination of Goodman, Hannula, and Asada
`discloses “at least a portion of light reflected by the light
`reflective material and detected by the second optical
`detector is processed by the signal processor as a noise
`reference for attenuating motion oise from signals
`produced by the optical detector” [5.3]. ................................... 63
`XVI. Ground 10: The Combination of Goodman and Asada Renders
`Claims 6 and 7 Obvious .............................................................................. 64
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman and Asada ............................. 64
`B.
`The Combination of Goodman and Asada Renders Claim 6
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 65
`The Combination of Goodman and Asada Renders Claim 7
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 66
`XVII. Ground 11: The Combination of Goodman and Delonzor Renders
`Claim 8 Obvious ......................................................................................... 67
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman and Delonzor ........................ 67
`
`C.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`The Combination of Goodman and Delonzor Renders Claim 8
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 69
`1. The combination of Goodman and Delonzor discloses
`that “the at least one window comprises at least two
`windows” [8.1] .......................................................................... 69
`2. The combination of Goodman and Delonzor discloses
`“light blocking material positioned between the at least
`one optical emitter and the at least one optical detector
`such that the at least one optical emitter and the at least
`one optical detector are not in direct optical
`communication with each other” [8.2]. .................................... 69
`XVIII. Ground 12: The Combination of Goodman and Al-Ali Renders
`Claims 9 and 10 Obvious ............................................................................ 70
`A. Motivation for Combining Goodman and Al-Ali ............................ 70
`B.
`The Combination of Goodman and Al-Ali Renders Claim 9
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 72
`The Combination of Goodman and Al-Ali Renders Claim 10
`Obvious. ........................................................................................... 72
`XIX. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 73
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`
`CASES
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 ................................................................................ 7, 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269 to LeBoeuf et al. titled “Wearable Light-
`guiding Bands for Physiological Monitoring,” issued November 11,
`2014
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Brian W. Anthony in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Brian W. Anthony
`Asada, H. et al. “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable
`Photoplethysmographic Biosensors,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine
`and Biology Magazine, May/June 2003; pp. 28-40
`U.S. Patent No. 5,226,417 to Swedlow et al. titled “Apparatus for
`the Detection of Motion Transients,” issued July 13, 1993
`U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 to Goodman et al. titled “Sensor Having
`Cutaneous Conformance,” issued May 16, 1989
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,061 to Hicks et al. titled “Disposable
`Oximetry Sensor,” issued June 1, 2004
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,986 to Hannula et al. titled “Non-Adhesive
`Oximeter Sensor for Sensitive Skin,” issued March 13, 2007
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,841 to Delonzor et al. titled “Shunt Barrier in
`Pulse Oximeter Sensor,” issued August 25, 1998
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123763 to Al-Ali et
`al. titled “Optical Sensor Including Disposable and Reusable
`Elements,” published May 31, 2007
`Excerpt from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh
`Edition, 2008; p. 828
`Mendelson, Y. et al., “Skin Reflectance Pulse Oximetry: In Vivo
`Measurements from the Forearm and Calf,” Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1991; pp. 7-12
`Konig, V. et al., “Reflectance Pulse Oximetry - Principles and
`Obstetric Application in the Zurich System,” Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring and Computing, Vol. 14, No. 6, August 1998; pp. 403-
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`Description
`
`412
`Mendelson, Y. et al. “A Wearable Reflectance Pulse Oximeter for
`Remote Physiological Monitoring,” Proceedings of the 28th IEEE
`EMBS Annual International Conference, New York City, New
`York, August 30-September 3, 2006; pp. 912-915
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,562 to Kimura et al. titled “Vital Signal
`Detecting Apparatus,” issued August 19, 2003
`Tremper, K. et al., “Pulse Oximetry,” Medical Intelligence Article,
`Anesthesiology, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 1989; pp. 98-108
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of Asada, H. et al.
`“Mobile Monitoring with Wearable Photoplethysmographic
`Biosensors,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine,
`May/June 2003; pp. 28-40 (Ex. 1005)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`ix
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1015
`
`1015
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Fitbit, Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-10 of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,886,269 to LeBoeuf et al. (“the ʼ269 patent”).
`
`The ’269 patent should never have been granted. None of the ’269 patent’s
`
`claims recite a patentable invention. Indeed, the claims do nothing more than recite
`
`what was already in the public domain. Fitbit demonstrates below that a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that all 10 challenged claims of the ’269 patent are unpatentable.
`
`For decades prior to the ’269 patent, artisans had developed and continued to
`
`improve sensor devices commonly known as non-invasive optical biosensors for
`
`optically detecting and measuring physiological information, such as blood oxygen
`
`saturation and heart rate. (Ex. 1003, Anthony Decl., ¶27.) These sensors came in a
`
`variety of form-factors and included pulse oximeters, which were well-known by
`
`the 1970s. (Id., ¶28.) These sensors require only a few opto-electronic components:
`
`a light source (often red or near infrared) to illuminate the tissue (commonly at the
`
`finger, nose, ear, or wrist) and a photodetector to measure the variations in light
`
`intensity associated with changes in blood volume. (Id., ¶¶29- 31.) Some employed
`
`the well-known photoplethysmography (PPG) technique described in the ’269
`
`patent. (Id., ¶¶32-34.) A simple, appropriately programmed signal processor can
`
`extract heart rate and a variety of other physiological parameters. (Id., ¶29.)
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`It has long been known that PPG measurements were sensitive to patient
`
`and/or device-tissue movement artifacts. (Id., ¶35.) Numerous motion cancellation
`
`techniques have been developed, including the incorporation of sensors that could
`
`provide a reference signal to the signal processor to cancel the motion contribution
`
`in the sensed PPG signal. (Id., ¶36.)
`
`In recent decades, the desire for small, reliable, low-cost and simple-to-use,
`
`non-invasive (cardiovascular) assessment techniques were key factors that have
`
`propelled the use of PPG. (Id., ¶37.) Developments in semiconductor technology
`
`(e.g., light emitting diodes (LED), photodiodes, and phototransistors) have made
`
`considerable improvements in the size, sensitivity, reliability and reproducibility of
`
`PPG devices. (Id., ¶38.) As this technology became smaller and more robust, it was
`
`integrated into wireless, wearable technology such as rings, wristwatches, and
`
`earphones. (Id.)
`
`The claims of the ’269 patent recite nothing more than what was already
`
`known in the prior art. (Ex. 1003, ¶48.) Accordingly, Fitbit respectfully requests
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-10 of the ʼ269 patent.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party in interest of the Petitioner
`
`is Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ’269 Patent is the subject of the following
`
`civil actions: Valencell, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00001 (E.D.N.C.);
`
`Valencell, Inc. v. Bragi Store, LLC, et al., Case No. 5-16-cv-00895 (E.D.N.C.); and
`
`Valencell v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00002 (E.D.N.C.).
`
`The ’269 Patent is the subject of an instituted inter partes review,
`
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017-00318 (instituted June 5, 2017).
`
`Petitioner is filing concurrently with this Petition a Motion for Joinder with the -
`
`00318 case. U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830, a continuation of the ’269 Patent, is also
`
`the subject of an instituted inter partes review. Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case
`
`IPR2017-00317 (instituted June 5, 2017). Petitioner is concurrently filing a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830, Case IPR2017-
`
`01553.
`
`The ’269 Patent claims the benefit of U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111. U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,301,696; 8,929,966; and 9,289,135 also claim the benefit of the ’269
`
`Patent.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner designates Harper Batts (Reg. No. 56,160) as its lead counsel
`
`and Jeremy Taylor (Reg. No. 73,912) as its back-up counsel, both of Baker Botts,
`
`L.L.P.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Service information is as follows: Baker
`
`Botts L.L.P, 1001 Page Mill Road, Building One, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA, 94304;
`
`Tel. (650) 739-7500; Fax (650) 739-7609. Petitioner consents to electronic service
`
`by
`
`email
`
`at
`
`the
`
`email
`
`addresses:
`
`harper.batts@bakerbotts.com,
`
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com, and dlfitbit-valencell@bakerbotts.com.
`
`FEES: The Office is authorized to charge fees for this Petition to
`
`Deposit Account No. 02-0384, Ref. 085520.0101.
`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’965 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review. Petitioner further certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`this inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. See also 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b) (“The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall not apply when the
`
`petition is accompanied by a request for joinder”).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`A. Citation of Prior Art
`The ’269 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,700,111, filed on
`
`January 21, 2010 and claims priority to Provisional Application Nos.: 61/274,191,
`
`filed August 14, 2009; 61/212,444, filed April 13, 2009; 61/208,567, filed
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`February 25, 2009; and 61/208,574, filed February 25, 2009.1 The following prior
`
`art documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability were published prior to the
`
`earliest possible priority date, February 25, 2009.
`
`Asada, H. et al. “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable Photoplethysmographic
`
`Biosensors” (Ex. 1005, “Asada”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and 102(b) because it was published by IEEE in May-June 2003 and publicly
`
`available no later than the last day of July 2003, more than one year before the
`
`’269 patent’s earliest possible priority date. (Ex. 1018.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 to Goodman et al., titled “Sensor Having
`
`Cutaneous Conformance” (Ex. 1007, “Goodman”), is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on May 16, 1989, more than
`
`one year before the ’269 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,061 to Hicks et al., titled “Disposable Oximetry
`
`Sensor” (Ex. 1008, “Hicks”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`
`102(b) because it was published on June 1, 2004, more than one year before the
`
`’269 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`
`1 Fitbit does not acquiesce that the ’269 patent is entitled to priority benefit of any
`
`of these provisional applications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,986 to Hannula et al., titled “Non-Adhesive
`
`Oximeter Sensor for Sensitive Skin” (Ex. 1009, “Hannula”), is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on March 13, 2007,
`
`more than one year before the ’269 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,841 to Delonzor et al., titled “Shunt Barrier in Pulse
`
`Oximeter Sensor” (Ex. 1010, “Delonzor”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on August 25, 1998, more than one
`
`year before the ’269 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123763 to Al-Ali et al.,
`
`titled “Optical Sensor Including Disposable and Reusable Elements” (Ex. 1011,
`
`“Al-Ali”), is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was
`
`published on May 31, 2007, more than one year before the ’269 patent’s earliest
`
`possible priority date.
`
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge
`
`B.
`Fitbit requests review of claims 1-10 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Asada
`Asada, Hicks
`Asada, Hannula
`Asada, Delonzor
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 2, 6, 7
`3
`4, 5
`8
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`
`
`Asada, Al-Ali
`Goodman
`Goodman, Hicks
`Goodman, Hannula
`Goodman,
`Hannula,
`Asada
`Goodman, Asada
`Goodman, Delonzor
`Goodman, Al-Ali
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`9, 10
`1, 2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6, 7
`8
`9, 10
`
`C. The Board should institute all grounds because doing so would
`not be unduly burdensome.
`
`Fitbit recognizes that the Board may use its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) to institute trial only on certain grounds. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, p.2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25,
`
`2012). The Board typically exercises its discretion when numerous proposed
`
`grounds are asserted against the same claims. For example, the Board did so where
`
`all 31 claims of a patent were challenged under 49 total grounds over multiple
`
`petitions. See e.g., Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00535,
`
`Paper 9, pp.19-20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2014). Here, only ten claims are presented
`
`for inter partes review, with each claim challenged under just two distinct grounds.
`
`Although there are twelve total grounds, this is because separate references are
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`applied against dependent claims, which merely recite well-known features, for
`
`example, a lens region (claim 3) or light blocking material between the emitter and
`
`detector (claim 8).
`
`In view of the reasonable number of challenged claims and grounds
`
`presented, Fitbit also points out that the Board may institute inter partes review on
`
`any and all grounds where the petitioner “articulate[s] relative strengths and
`
`weaknesses between references.” Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 6.
`
`Fitbit does so here.
`
`The first set of grounds is based on Asada under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Asada
`
`discloses a ring sensor having each independent claim element, but does not
`
`expressly correlate the reference labels illustrated in the Figures with the disclosed
`
`elements described in the text. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood what these elements are, as supported by Dr. Anthony’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1003) and prior art such as Swedlow, which discloses a similar
`
`device and expressly identifies each element in the Figures. These grounds are
`
`arguably stronger than the Goodman grounds because Asada discloses a ring
`
`sensor nearly identical to the ’269 patent claims. However, these grounds are
`
`arguably weaker because the Figures in Asada do not correlate the reference
`
`numbers with the disclosed elements. Also, because Asada is not a patent or patent
`
`application publication, it is not self-authenticating.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`The second set of grounds is based on Goodman under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`These grounds are arguably stronger than the Asada grounds because a granted
`
`U.S. patent shows that the devices claimed in the ’269 patent were in the prior art
`
`decades earlier. However, these grounds are arguably weaker because Goodman’s
`
`sensor device is generally flat until being wrapped around a finger, at which point
`
`the device becomes “generally cylindrical,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Fitbit would be prejudiced should the Board institute trial based only on the
`
`Asada or Goodman grounds. The Board’s construction of terms, for example,
`
`“generally cylindrical” or “near,” could affect the strength of the grounds and will
`
`not be known until the Final Written Decision. So if the Board institutes trial for
`
`only one set of grounds, Fitbit may be precluded from asserting its best challenge
`
`against claims that are clearly unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, the totality of circumstances here counsels that, in the interest
`
`of justice, the Board should institute trial for each challenged claim based on both
`
`sets of grounds.
`
`V. The ’269 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’269 Patent
`The ’269 patent is primarily directed to embodiments of headset and earbud
`
`devices, shown in Figures 1-21. The devices can include physiological sensors to
`
`measure heart rate, pulse rate, VO2, etc. (Ex. 1001, 4:31-65.) For example, the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`sensors can be PPG sensors for measuring blood flow properties such as blood
`
`oxygen level. (Id., 4:1-3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶39-42.)
`
`The devices can be shaped for other body parts, for example, “a digit, finger,
`
`toe, limb, around the nose