IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`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. 8,923,941
`
`
`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. 8,923,941
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page No.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ....................................... 8
`A. Statutory Grounds for the Challenge .......................................................... 8
`B. Citation of Prior Art .................................................................................... 9
`C. The ’941 Patent ......................................................................................... 11
`D. Overview .................................................................................................. 11
`E. Summary of the Prosecution History ....................................................... 11
`F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 13
`G. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 13
`1. “physiological information” ................................................................ 13
`2. [This section intentionally omitted] .................................................... 14
`3. [This section intentionally omitted] .................................................... 14
`III. Ground 1: Claims 1–2, 9, and 11-13 are unpatentable under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Luo in view of Craw. ..................................... 15
`A. Overview of Luo ....................................................................................... 15
`B. Overview of Craw .................................................................................... 19
`C. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 22
`D. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 26
`E. [This section intentionally omitted] ......................................................... 27
`F. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 27
`G. Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 27
`H. Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 27
`I. Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 27
`IV. Ground 2: [This section intentionally omitted] ............................................. 28
`V. Ground 3: Claims 6 and 8 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Luo in view of Craw and Fricke. ................................ 28
`A. Overview of Fricke ................................................................................... 29
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Luo, Craw, and Fricke .............. 33
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`VI. Ground 4: Claim 7 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Luo in view of Craw, Fricke, and Comtois................................ 35
`A. Overview of Comtois ............................................................................... 36
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Luo, Craw, Fricke, and
`Comtois ..................................................................................................... 39
`VII. Ground 5: Claim 10 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Luo in view of Craw and Aceti .................................................. 39
`A. Overview of Aceti .................................................................................... 40
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Luo, Craw, and Aceti ............... 41
`VIII. Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11–12 are unpatentable under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mault in view of Al-Ali. ................................ 42
`A. Overview of Mault ................................................................................... 42
`B. Overview of Al-Ali ................................................................................... 44
`C. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 46
`D. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 51
`E. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 52
`F. Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 52
`G. Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 53
`IX. Ground 7: [This section intentionally omitted] ............................................. 53
`X. Ground 8: [This section intentionally omitted] ............................................. 53
`XI. Ground 9: Claims 6–8 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Mault in view of Al-Ali, and Han. .......................................... 53
`A. Overview of Han ...................................................................................... 53
`B. Rationale to combine the teachings of Mault, Al-Ali, and Han ............... 56
`XII. Ground 10: Claim 10 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Mault in view of Al-Ali and Numaga. ....................................... 56
`A. Overview of Numaga ............................................................................... 57
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Mault, Al-Ali, and
`Numaga ..................................................................................................... 58
`XIII. Ground 11: Claim 13 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Mault in view of Al-Ali and Ali. ............................................... 58
`A. Overview of Ali ........................................................................................ 59
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Mault, Al-Ali, and Ali .............. 60
`XIV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`XV. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .............................................. 62
`XVI. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. 62
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.,
`520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 69
`Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
`396 U.S. 57 (1969) ........................................................................................ 30, 47
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`____US____, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)................................................................. 13
`Dann v. Johnston,
`425 U.S. 219 (1976) ...................................................................................... 54, 56
`Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp.,
`340 U.S. 147 (1950) ............................................................................................ 71
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 13
`In re Nilssen,
`851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 67
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 54
`Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273 (1976) ............................................................................................ 30
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................passim
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 to LeBoeuf et al., issued December 30,
`2014
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`Valencell, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-16-cv-00010 (E.D.N.C),
`Complaint filed January 4, 2016
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209516 to Fraden,
`published September 22, 2005
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081972 to
`Debreczeny, published April 3, 2008
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2005/040261 A to
`Numaga et al., published February 17, 2005
`Certified English-language translation of Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 2005/040261 A to Numaga et al.,
`published February 17, 2005
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065269 to Vetter et
`al., published April 3, 2003
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105556 to Fricke et
`al., published April 23, 2009
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 3,704,706 to Herczfeld et al., issued December 5,
`1972
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,548 to Pologe, issued March 29, 1994
`Med. Sci. Series, Int’l Fed’n for Med. and Biological Eng’g and the
`Int’l Org. for Med. Physics, Design of Pulse Oximeters (J.G.
`Webster ed., Inst. of Physics Publ’g 1997)
`John Allen, Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`physiological measurement, Physiological Measurement 28 (2007)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0132798 to Hong et
`al., published June 5, 2008
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0177162 to Bae et
`al., published July 24, 2008
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012 -1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,267 to Bryars et al. issued September 15,
`1998
`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)
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0186387 to Kosuda
`et al., published September 23, 2004
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0287067 to Dorogusker et al.,
`published November 19, 2009
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/059870 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)
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of 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) (Ex.
`1032)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0059236 to
`Margulies et al., published March 25, 2004
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0016086 to Inukai et
`al., published January 18, 2007
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0236647 to Yoon et
`al., published December 25, 2003
`International Patent Application Publication No. 2007/013054 to
`Schwartz, published February 1, 2007
`U.S. Patent No. 5,575,284 to Athan et al., issued November 19,
`1996
`U.S. Patent No. 5,503,016 to Koen, issued April 2, 1996
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0027367 to Oliver et
`al., published February 1, 2007
`
`Exhibit No.
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029 - 1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`1040
`1041
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`1049
`
`1050
`1051
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`1058
`
`1059
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0197881 to Wolf et
`al., published August 23, 2007
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0075542 to
`Goldreich, published April 7, 2005
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO2007/004089
`to Moroney et al., published January 11, 2007
`G. Sen Gupta et al., Design of a Low-cost Physiological Parameter
`Measurement and Monitoring Device, Instrumentation and
`Measurement Technology Conference, IEEE (2007)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0084879 to Nazarian
`et al., published April 20, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,243,992 to Eckerle et al., issued September 14,
`1993
`U.S. Patent No. 4,955,379 to Hall, issued September 11, 1990
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2007/122375
`to Crowe et al., published November 1, 2007
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of G. Sen Gupta et al.,
`Design of a Low-cost Physiological Parameter Measurement and
`Monitoring Device, Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
`Conference, IEEE (2007) (Ex. 1045) and 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) (Ex. 1025)
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0200774 to Luo,
`published August 21, 2008
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133699 to Craw et
`al., published June 5, 2008
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,532 to Mault et al., issued February 4, 2003
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0181798 to Al-Ali,
`published September 25, 2003
`R.G. Lee et al. “A Mobile Care System With Alert Mechanism”
`IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine,
`Vol. 11, Issue 5, September 2007
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of R.G. Lee et al. “A
`Mobile Care System With Alert Mechanism” IEEE Transactions on
`Information Technology in Biomedicine, Vol. 11, Issue 5,
`September 2007 (Ex. 1059)
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2006/009830
`to Behar et al., published January 26, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,893 to Oberg et al., issued March 14, 1995
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,584 to Baker, Jr. et al., issued April 13, 2004
`U.S. Patent No. 6,996,427 to Ali et al., issued February 7, 2006
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0154098 to Morris et
`al., published June 26, 2008
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/44274 to
`Pougatchev et al., published August 3, 2000
`
`Exhibit No.
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`1063
`1064
`1065
`
`1066
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Fitbit, Inc. requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6–13 of United
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`States Patent No. 8,923,941 (“the ʼ941 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`Photoplethysmography (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PPG’)1 refers to the
`
`use of light to measure the changes in blood volume in the tissue of a living body.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶26. The technique was introduced in 1937 and had become a
`
`ubiquitous part of physiological monitoring long before the ʼ941 Patent. Id. By
`
`2009, the earliest claimed priority date, PPG technology was widely available and
`
`was established as a simple, low-cost, readily-portable choice for both clinical and
`
`non- clinical physiological measurements. Id.
`
`PPG is an optical technique whereby light is projected into living tissue, and
`
`the reflected light is detected after its interaction with the skin, blood, and other
`
`tissue. Id. at ¶27. The intensity of the reflected light depends on the volume of
`
`blood. Id. The volume of blood fluctuates proportionally with the cardiac cycle.
`
`As a result, a PPG sensor detects a time-varying pulsatile waveform, or pulse
`
`wave, that is synchronized with each heartbeat. Id.
`
`
`1 Photoplethysmographic, photoplethysmogram, and photoplethysmography are all
`
`terms abbreviated PPG. Other abbreviations, however, such as PTG, are also
`
`occasionally used in the art. Ex. 1003, ¶26.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`A 1972 patent illustrates many of the conventional components of a PPG
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`heart rate monitor using this optical technique to continuously measure the pulse of
`
`a subject. Id.; Ex. 1018. As shown below, the small probe housing included a
`
`light source to emit light directly into the finger of a subject and a photodetector to
`
`collect light directly from the finger. Ex. 1018, 2:60-3:22, Figure 1 (annotated and
`
`reproduced below).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`In operation, the probe was placed upon the patient’s finger such that blood
`
`flowing in the finger’s capillaries reflected incident red light. Ex. 1003, ¶29. The
`
`intensity of the reflected light was understood to be inversely proportional to the
`
`amount of blood flowing in the finger. Id. For each heartbeat, blood pumped into
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`and out of the capillaries, thereby causing a periodic decrease and increase in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`reflected light intensity. Id. The detected periodic waveform was known to
`
`represent a volume of the circulating blood synchronized to each heartbeat. Id.
`
`This pulsatile waveform was known as a photoplethysmogram or pulse wave. Id.;
`
`Ex. 1020, Figure 4.4 (reproduced below illustrates an idealized transmission and
`
`absorption model).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020, Fig. 4.4 Absorbed and transmitted light in living tissue.
`
`Hence, as of the earliest claimed priority date, photoplethysmography was a
`
`known optical measurement technique used to detect blood volume changes in
`
`living tissue.2 Ex. 1003, ¶30. The basic form of PPG technology requires only a
`
`
`2 The idealized model of absorbed and transmitted light in living tissue (shown
`
`above) illustrates that pulsation of arterial blood can dominate the pulse wave
`
`signal and the contribution from venous blood is therefore often ignored while the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`few opto-electronic components: a light source (typically red or near infrared) to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`illuminate the tissue (commonly at the ear, wrist, or finger) and a photodetector to
`
`measure a pulse wave due to the small variations in light intensity associated with
`
`changes in blood volume. Id. A simple, appropriately programmed signal
`
`processor can extract heart rate and a variety of other physiological parameters
`
`from the pulse wave. Id. at ¶30-33.
`
`In recent decades, the desire for small, reliable, low-cost and simple-to-use
`
`noninvasive (cardiovascular) assessment techniques were key factors that
`
`propelled the use of PPG. Id. at ¶34. Advances in opto-electronics and clinical
`
`instrumentation have also significantly contributed to its advancement. Id. The
`
`developments in semiconductor technology (i.e. light emitting diodes (LEDs),
`
`photodiodes, and phototransistors), have made considerable improvements in the
`
`size, sensitivity, reliability and reproducibility of PPG probe design. Id. By the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, there had also been considerable developments in
`
`computer-based digital signal processing and pulse wave analysis. Id.
`
`
`subject is at rest. It was also known, however, that body movement (such as
`
`walking, running, and the like) can significantly affect venous blood flow and
`
`hence the PPG signal, which cannot be ignored. Ex. 1003, ¶ 39; Ex. 1027, ¶¶ 0230-
`
`0232, 0345-0347.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`As this technology became ever smaller and more robust, PPG sensors were
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`integrated into wearable technology. Ex. 1003, ¶35. As a natural development of
`
`making portable devices, wearable technology often included a wireless
`
`communication system for the outputting of physiological and other related
`
`information to remote computing devices (via a wireless protocol such as
`
`Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.). Id. at ¶¶36-38. Nonetheless, wired transmission was also
`
`available (e.g., via serial protocols such as RS-232, Universal Serial Bus (USB),
`
`etc.). Id. These communication systems typically utilized serial (as opposed to
`
`parallel) transmission of data. Id.
`
`It was also well established that PPG measurements were quite sensitive to
`
`patient and/or probe–tissue movement artifacts. Ex. 1003, ¶39-40. Motion
`
`artifacts can contribute a significant error to PPG measurements if not mitigated.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶40. Furthermore, if these artifacts mimic a heartbeat, the instrument
`
`may be unable to differentiate between the pulsations from motion artifacts and
`
`those from normal arterial pulsations, thereby causing erroneous readings. Id. As
`
`shown below, the PPG waveform obtained during exercise exhibits significant
`
`deviation from the period PPG waveform obtain while the subject was at rest. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020, Fig. 11.2 – The PPG Waveform
`
`Practically, these motion artifacts could be reduced by digital signal
`
`processing. Id. at ¶41. By the mid-2000’s, several motion artifact cancellation
`
`techniques had been developed, including the incorporation of motion sensors that
`
`could provide a reference signal to the signal processor to cancel the motion
`
`contribution inherent in the sensed PPG signal. Id.
`
`One common cancellation technique was to employ frequency filtering. Id.
`
`at ¶42. Certain physiological parameters could be expected to exhibit periodic
`
`behavior within a specific frequency range. Id. at ¶¶42-43. For example, heart
`
`rates are generally within the frequency range of 1-3 Hz. Id. Respiratory rates
`
`have their own identifiable range (approximately 0.17 Hz (10 breaths per minute)
`
`to 0.5 Hz (30 breaths per minute)). Ex. 1003, ¶43. Thus a well-known technique
`
`was to filter a sampled pulse wave to remove noise from the pulse signal outside
`
`the expected range. Ex. 1003, ¶43. Simple low-pass filters were used to pass
`
`signals with a frequency lower than a certain cutoff frequency and attenuate signals
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`with frequencies higher than the cutoff frequency. Ex. 1003, ¶44. Similarly, high-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`pass filters were used to pass signals with a frequency higher than a certain cutoff
`
`frequency and attenuate signals with frequencies lower than the cutoff frequency.
`
`Id. Both high-pass and low-pass filters were often used in series to create a band-
`
`pass filter. Id. The band-pass filter allows the selection of a particular frequency
`
`range of interest by setting upper and lower frequency bounds. Ex. 1003, ¶44.
`
`This simple frequency filtering technique worked reasonably well for
`
`cancelling motion artifacts, so long as the frequency of the motion fell outside the
`
`expected frequency range of the physiological parameter. Id. at ¶¶45-46. But, as
`
`noted above, certain types of activity may still fall with the expected range. Id.
`
`For example, walking (2 Hz) or running (3 Hz) could have a frequency range
`
`overlapping with the desired physiological parameter, such as heart rate. Id. Thus,
`
`a simple frequency filter was often insufficient to remove motion artifacts during
`
`exercise and other physical activity. Id. at ¶46.
`
`To obtain accurate physiological measurements during exercise and other
`
`physical activity, other noise cancelling techniques were developed. Id. at ¶¶47-
`
`50. One type of technique was an active noise cancelling technique based on a
`
`motion reference signal obtained from a motion sensor. Id. Part of the technique
`
`was to place the motion sensor with or near a PPG sensor to provide a motion
`
`reference signal. Id. The sensed PPG signal was understood to be a corrupted
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`signal composed of the uncorrupted pulse wave and motion artifacts. Id. A signal
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`processor used the motion reference signal to extract motion artifacts from the
`
`sensed PPG signal. Id.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge
`
`A.
`
`Fitbit requests review of claims 1, 2, and 6–13 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Luo & Craw
`
`§ 103
`
`1–2, 9, & 11–13
`
`[This ground intentionally skipped]
`
`
`
`
`
`Luo, Craw, & Fricke
`
`§ 103
`
`6 & 8
`
`Luo, Craw, Fricke, & Comtois
`
`§ 103
`
`7
`
`Luo, Craw, & Aceti
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`Mault & Al-Ali
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 9, 11, & 12
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`References
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`[This ground intentionally skipped]
`
`[This ground intentionally skipped]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mault, Al-Ali, & Han
`
`§ 103
`
`6–8
`
`10 Mault, Al-Ali, & Numaga
`
`11 Mault, Al-Ali, & Ali
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`13
`
`
` Citation of Prior Art
`B.
`The ’941 Patent is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`12/691,388, filed Jan. 21, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,700,111, which claims the
`
`benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/208,567 filed
`
`Feb. 25, 2009, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/208,574 filed Feb. 25,
`
`2009, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/212,444 filed Apr. 13, 2009, and
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/274,191 filed Aug. 14, 2009. Each of
`
`the following prior art documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability qualify
`
`as prior art before the earliest possible priority date, February 25, 2009.3
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’941 Patent has support under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 in any earlier-filed application and thus is entitled to the benefit of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, Fitbit cites the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`following prior art references:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0200774 (“Luo”);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133699 (“Craw”);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0197881 (“Wolf);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105556 (“Fricke”);
`
`• Comtois et al., A Comparative Evaluation of Adaptive Noise
`
`Cancellation Algorithms for Minimizing Motion Artifacts in a Forehead-
`
`Mounted Wearable Pulse Oximeter, IEEE (2007);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0059870 (“Aceti”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,513,532 (“Mault”);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0181798 (“Al-Ali”);
`
`•
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2005/040261 A (“Numaga”);
`
`• Lee et al., A Mobile Care System with Alert Mechanism, IEEE (2007);
`
`• WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2006/009830 (“Behar”);
`
`• Han et al., Development of a wearable health monitoring device with
`
`motion artifact reduced algorithm, IEEE (2007); and
`
`
`priority. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to challenge any benefit claim
`
`should patent owner attempt to antedate any art.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`• U.S. Patent No. 6,996,427 (“Ali”).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`All references with the exception of Luo, Craw, and Fricke were published
`
`more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date, and therefore qualify
`
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). At a minimum, Luo, Craw, and Fricke
`
`qualify as prior art as of their filing dates under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The ’941 Patent
`C.
`
` Overview
`D.
`Claims 1–13 of the ’941 patent are directed to a method for generating data
`
`output containing physiological and motion-related information. Ex. 1001, 30:35-
`
`54.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`E.
`
`The brief prosecution history of the ’941 Patent contains a single rejection of
`
`claims 1–14 (now claims 1–13). Ex. 1003, ¶¶54-58. The examiner rejected claim
`
`2 as failing to enable signals from “at least one motion sensor” to determine
`
`motion related information. Ex. 1002, p. 155. In response, Valencell cancelled
`
`claim 2. Id. at 181.
`
`The examiner also rejected claims 1–14 as anticipated by US Patent
`
`Publication No. 2009/0287067 (“Dorogusker”). Dorogusker described systems for
`
`integrating sensors for tracking a user’s performance metrics into media devices
`
`and accessories. Ex. 1028, ¶0032; Ex. 1002, pp. 156-157. The examiner found
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`that Dorogusker explicitly disclosed (1) sensing physical activity of a subject via
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`accelerometer; (2) sensing physiological information from the subject via PPG
`
`sensor; (3) processing signals from the motion sensor and signals from the PPG
`
`sensor into a serial data string of physiological information and motion-related
`
`information (based on the teaching of a serial interface protocol); and (4) a
`
`plurality of physiological parameters can be extracted from the physiological
`
`information, and wherein a plurality of subject physical activity parameters can be
`
`extracted from the motion-related information. Ex. 1002, pp. 156-157.
`
`In response, Valencell amended claim 1 and argued that Dorogusker failed
`
`to teach the newly-added feature regarding the serial data output. Valencell
`
`acknowledged that Dorogusker taught being able to extract a subject’s heart rate
`
`and other metrics, but argued that Dorogusker was silent to respiration rate. Id. at
`
`181. Valencell further argued that Dorogusker failed to explicitly disclose
`
`configuring serial data output of physiological information and motion-related
`
`information such that physiological parameters can be extracted from the
`
`physiological information and such that physical activity parameters can be
`
`extracted from the motion-related information. Id. at 182.
`
`The Office then issued claims 1 and 3–14 (now 1-13) without providing any
`
`response or reasons for allowance on the record. Id. at 232.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`F.
`
`Based on the disclosure of the ’941 Patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the relevant time (POSA), would have had at least a four-year degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or related field of study, or
`
`equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in studying or
`
`developing physiological sensors. A POSA would also be familiar with optical
`
`system design and signal processing. Ex. 1003, ¶59.
`
` Claim Construction
`G.
`Claim terms of the ʼ941 Patent are interpreted according to their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, ____US____, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`Under BRI, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless disavowed in the
`
`specification. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 36