`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MAJID SARRAFZADEH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`Apple Inc.
`APL1003
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications ................................................................................................... 3
`III. Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 5
`IV. Background and State of the Art............................................................10
`A. Wearable Technology ............................................................................16
`B. Communication ......................................................................................19
`C. Noise Artifacts .......................................................................................20
`D. Adaptive Filtering Techniques ...............................................................24
`The ’941 Patent ..............................................................................................27
`A. Summary of the Prosecution History .....................................................28
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill of a Person in the Art.......................................29
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................................30
`1. “a body” ........................................................................................30
`2. “headset” .......................................................................................30
`3. “housing” ......................................................................................31
`4. “chipset” ........................................................................................32
`5. “window” ......................................................................................33
`VI. Ground 1: Claims 14–15 and 21 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Kosuda in view of Maekawa. ..................................................34
`A. Overview of Kosuda ..............................................................................34
`B. Overview of Maekawa ...........................................................................39
`C. Claim 14 .................................................................................................42
`[14.P] A wearable device ....................................................................42
`[14.1] a housing ...................................................................................43
`[14.2] a chipset enclosed within the housing ......................................43
`[14.3] at least one PPG sensor .............................................................45
`[14.4] at least one motion sensor .........................................................47
`[14.5] 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 ......47
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`[14.6] 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 ......................................................................................50
`[14.7] the housing comprises non-air light transmissive material in
`optical communication with the at least one PPG sensor and the
`window ..........................................................................................51
`D. Claim 15 .................................................................................................54
`E. Claim 21 .................................................................................................55
`VII. Ground 2: Claims 18–20 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Kosuda in view of Maekawa and Han. ..................................................56
`F. Claims 18-20 ..........................................................................................56
`1. Overview of Han ...........................................................................58
`G. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Kosuda, Maekawa, and Han ..62
`VIII. Ground 3: Claims 14-19 and 21 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Aceti in view of Fricke. ..........................................................63
`A. Overview of Aceti ..................................................................................63
`B. Overview of Fricke ................................................................................66
`C. Claim 14 .................................................................................................71
`[14.P] A wearable device ....................................................................71
`[14.1] a housing ...................................................................................72
`[14.2] a chipset enclosed within the housing ......................................72
`[14.3] at least one PPG sensor .............................................................74
`[14.4] at least one motion sensor .........................................................75
`[14.5] 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 ......75
`[14.6] 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 ......................................................................................78
`[14.7] the housing comprises non-air light transmissive material in
`optical communication with the at least one PPG sensor and the
`window ..........................................................................................79
`D. Claim 15 .................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`E. Claims 16 and 17 ...................................................................................80
`F. Claims 18 and 19 ...................................................................................80
`G. Claim 21 .................................................................................................85
`IX. Ground 4: Claim 20 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Aceti in view of Fricke and Comtois. ............................................................85
`A. Overview of Comtois .............................................................................85
`B. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Aceti, Fricke, and Comtois ....88
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................88
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1004
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1016
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`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
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209516 to Fraden,
`published September 22, 2005
`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
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105556 to Fricke et
`al., published April 23, 2009
`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,
`published July 24, 2008
`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)
`Excerpt from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`
`- v -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`
`
`Description
`Eleventh Edition, 2008; p. 603
`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
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2005/270544 to
`Maekawa, published October 6, 2005
`Certified English-language translation of Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 2005/270544 to Maekawa, published
`October 6, 2005
`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)
`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
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0154098 to Morris et
`al., published June 26, 2008
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0027367 to Oliver et
`al., published February 1, 2007
`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
`
`- vi -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`
`Description
`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
`Excerpt from Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary, 2004; p. 110
`Excerpt from Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, 2009; p.
`90
`U.S. Patent No. 6,801,799 to Mendelson et al., issued October 5,
`1990
`U.S. Patent No. 6,898,451 to Wuori, issued May 24, 2005
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a distinguished professor of computer science at the
`
`University of California at Los Angeles (“UCLA”), director of the UCLA
`
`Embedded and Reconfigurable Computing Laboratory (“ER Lab”), and a co-
`
`director of the UCLA Center for SMART Health. I have been actively engaged in
`
`research of Wearable Systems for 16 years and Embedded Systems, Design and
`
`Analysis of Algorithms, and Health Analytics for about 29 years.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. to provide expert
`
`opinions in connection with a petition for Inter Partes Review before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office. I understand that this declaration involves my
`
`expert opinions and expert knowledge related to U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 (“the
`
`’941 patent”), titled “Methods and Apparatus for Generating Data Output
`
`Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information,” and its field of
`
`endeavor.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`’941 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002). The ’941 Patent relates to a
`
`“physiological monitoring apparatus” and describes “a method of generating a data
`
`string containing physiological and motion-related information.” Ex. 1001, 1:21,
`
`Abstract. I am familiar with the technology and state of the art described in the
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`’941 Patent as of its February 19, 2014 filing date, as well as the technology and
`
`state of the art as of its claimed February 25, 2009 priority date.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with each exhibit cited herein. I
`
`confirm that to the best of my knowledge that the accompanying exhibits are true
`
`and accurate copies of what they purport to be, and that an expert in the field
`
`would reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions such as those set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent technical review,
`
`analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’941 Patent and the references that
`
`form the basis for the four grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’941 Patent.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Kosuda & Maekawa
`
`§ 103 14, 15, 21
`
`Kosuda, Maekawa, & Han
`
`§ 103 18–20
`
`Aceti & Fricke
`
`§ 103 14-19, 21
`
`Aceti, Fricke, & Comtois
`
`§ 103 20
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`II. Qualifications
`As indicated in my curriculum vitae (filed as Ex. 1004), I am
`6.
`
`currently a professor of computer science at UCLA and have been in that position
`
`for the last sixteen years. I am also the director of the UCLA Embedded and
`
`Reconfigurable Computing Laboratory (“ER Lab”), a co-director of the UCLA
`
`Center for SMART Health, a co-director of the BRITE Center on Minority Health
`
`Disparities, and a co-founder of UCLA Wireless Health Institute.
`
`7.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Ph.D. degrees
`
`from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1982, 1984, and 1987, respectively.
`
`8.
`
`I became an Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Northwestern University in 1987, earned tenure in 1993, and
`
`became a Full Professor in 1997.
`
`9.
`
`In 2000, I joined the Computer Science Department at UCLA as a
`
`Full Professor. In 2008, I co-founded and became a director of the UCLA Wireless
`
`Health Institute. I currently teach two core undergraduate courses (involving
`
`implementing digital logic designs and advanced digital design techniques), a
`
`course on Algorithms and Complexity, and a series of graduate courses in the area
`
`of embedded systems and Wireless Health.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`10.
`
`I have experience as a system designer, circuit designer, and software
`
`designer. This experience includes positions as a design engineer at IBM and
`
`Motorola and a test engineer at Central Data Corporation. I was the main architect
`
`of an Electronic Design Automation (“EDA”) software tool for Monterey Design
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Monterey”). I co-founded and managed the technical team at
`
`Hierarchical Design, Inc. (“Hier Design”), an EDA company that specialized in
`
`reconfigurable field-programmable gate array (FPGA) systems. Hier Design was
`
`acquired by Xilinx in 2004. I have cofounded MediSens Wireless, Bruin
`
`Biometrics, and WANDA Health.
`
`11.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
`
`Inc. (“IEEE”) for my contributions to “Theory and Practice of VLSI Design.” I
`
`have served on the technical program committees of numerous conferences in the
`
`area of system design. I cofounded the International conference on Wireless Health
`
`and have served in various committees of this conference.
`
`12.
`
`I have published approximately 500 papers, and have received a
`
`number of best paper and distinguished paper awards. I am a co-author of the book
`
`“Synthesis Techniques and Optimizations for Reconfigurable Systems” (2003 by
`
`Springer) and a co-author of the papers such as:
`
`• Adaptive Electrocardiogram Feature Extraction on Distributed
`
`Embedded Systems, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Systems special issue on High Performance Computational Biology
`
`(2006);
`
`• A Remote Patient Monitoring System for Congestive Heart Failure,
`
`Journal of Medical Systems (2011);
`
`• SmartFall: An Automatic Fall Detection and Cause Identification
`
`System, IEEE Sensors Journal (2013); and
`
`• Designing a Robust Activity Recognition Framework for Health and
`
`Exergaming using Wearable Sensors, IEEE Journal of Biomedical
`
`and Health Informatics (2013).
`
`13. A more detailed account of my work experience and qualifications,
`
`including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years, can be found
`
`in my curriculum vitae, which is identified as Ex. 1004.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard rate of $650 per hour for my
`
`work on this case. My compensation is not dependent upon my opinions or
`
`testimony or the outcome of this case.
`
`III. Legal Principles
`I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
`15.
`
`of the ’941 Patent claims. I understand that the disclosures of the ’941 Patent and
`
`the prior art are judged from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the purported invention. For the purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`been instructed to consider the time of the purported invention of the ’941 Patent to
`
`be February 25, 2009 for each challenged claim unless noted otherwise. I will note,
`
`however, that my opinions would not change even if all the relevant disclosures
`
`were judged from a later time period.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that terms of the ’941 Patent claims are, by rule, given
`
`the broadest reasonable construction in light of its specification. Unless otherwise
`
`noted, I have generally given the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of purported
`
`invention.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. My
`
`opinions here relate to both anticipation and obviousness as detailed below.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of
`
`a claim is expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. I
`
`understand that an anticipating reference need not use the exact terms of the
`
`claims, but must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and
`
`detail to establish that the claimed subject matter existed in the prior art and that
`
`such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`purported invention. I also understand that an anticipating reference must enable
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the purported invention to practice without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`19.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view
`
`of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole. I also
`
`understand that obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion based on underlying
`
`facts of four general types, all of which must be considered: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that obviousness may be established by combining
`
`or modifying the teachings of the prior art. Specific teachings, suggestions, or
`
`motivations to combine any first prior art reference with a second prior art
`
`reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the date of
`
`invention. I understand that prior art references themselves may be one source of a
`
`specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the prior art, but that such
`
`suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, a rationale to combine the teachings
`
`of references may include logic or common sense available to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`21.
`
`I understand that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches,
`
`including uses beyond its primary purpose. I understand that though a reference
`
`may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`the mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.
`
`22.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success from combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the
`
`analysis. I understand there may be a number of rationales that may support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`
`led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that it is not proper to use hindsight to combine
`
`references or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims
`
`as a guide. My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that so-called objective considerations may be relevant to
`
`the determination of whether a claim is obvious should the Patent Owner allege
`
`such evidence. Such objective considerations can include evidence of commercial
`
`success caused by an invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an
`
`invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence that an invention
`
`achieved a surprising result. I understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or
`
`causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the claim. I am unaware of any such objective
`
`considerations having a nexus to the claims at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`25.
`
`I understand that for a reference to be used to show that a claim is
`
`obvious, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. I understand
`
`that a reference is analogous to the claimed invention if the reference is from the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different
`
`problem, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`inventor, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that a reference is reasonably pertinent based on the problem faced by
`
`the inventor as reflected in the specification, either explicitly or implicitly.
`
`IV. Background and State of the Art
`26. 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. 1021 (Allen - Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`
`physiological measurement), § 1. The technique was introduced in 1937 and had
`
`become a ubiquitous part of physiological monitoring long before the ʼ941 Patent
`
`
`1 Photoplethysmographic, photoplethysmogram, and photoplethysmography are all
`
`terms abbreviated PPG. Other abbreviations, however, such as PTG, are also
`
`occasionally used in the art. Ex. 1034 (Margulies – US 2004/0059236), ¶ 0054; Ex.
`
`1035 (Inukai – US 20070016086), ¶ 0027; Ex. 1036 (Yoon – US 2003/0236647), ¶
`
`0052.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`was filed. Ex. 1021, § 2.3. By 2009, the earliest claimed priority date, PPG
`
`technology was in widespread use and established as a simple, low-cost, readily-
`
`portable choice for both clinical and non-clinical physiological measurements. Ex.
`
`1021, § 2.3.
`
`27. 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. Ex. 1021, § 1. The intensity of the reflected light depends on the
`
`volume of blood. Ex. 1021, § 1. The volume of blood fluctuates proportionally
`
`with the cardiac cycle. Ex. 1021, § 1. As a result, a PPG sensor detects a time-
`
`varying pulsatile waveform, or pulse wave, that is synchronized with each
`
`heartbeat. Ex. 1021, § 1.
`
`28. A 1972 patent illustrates many of the conventional components of a
`
`PPG heart rate monitor using an optical technique to continuously measure the
`
`pulse of a subject. Ex. 1018 (Herczfeld - US 3,704,706). 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, fig. 1 (annotated, reproduce below).
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Light source
`Housing
`
`Incident
`light
`
`
`
`
`
`Photodetector
`
`Reflected
`light
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018, fig. 1 (annotations added).
`
`29.
`
`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. 1018, 3:40-
`
`42, Fig. 1; Ex. 1020 (Webster – Design of Pulse Oximeters), pp. 34-36. The
`
`intensity of the reflected light was understood to be inversely proportional to the
`
`amount of blood flowing in the finger. Ex. 1018, 3:42-55; Ex. 1020, pp. 40-49. For
`
`each heartbeat, blood pumped into and out of the capillaries, thereby causing a
`
`periodic decrease and increase in the reflected light intensity. Ex. 1018, 3:42-55;
`
`Ex. 1020, pp. 40-49. The detected periodic waveform was known to represent a
`
`volume of the circulating blood synchronized to each heartbeat. Ex. 1018, 3:42-55;
`
`Ex. 1020, pp. 40-49. This pulsatile waveform was known as a
`
`photoplethysmographic pulse wave. Ex. 1020, pp. 13-18, 40-49; Ex. 1021, § 2.1.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1020, p. 47.
`
`30. Hence, PPG was an old, well-known optical measurement technique
`
`used to detect blood volume changes in living tissue. Ex. 1021, § 1; Ex. 1020, pp.
`
`240-241. The basic form of PPG technology requires only a few opto-electronic
`
`components: a light source (often red or near infrared) to illuminate the tissue
`
`(commonly at the ear, wrist, or finger) and a photodetector to measure the small
`
`variations in light intensity associated with changes in blood volume. Ex. 1021, §§
`
`1, 2.4; Ex. 1020, pp. 34-38. A simple, appropriately programmed signal processor
`
`can extract heart rate, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and a
`
`variety of other physiological parameters. Ex. 1021, § 3; Ex 10XX (Schwartz -
`
`WO 2007/013054), 5:5-9, 10:6-20. 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
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`is therefore often ignored while the 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.
`
`1027 (Kosuda – US 2004/0186387), ¶¶ 230-232, 0345-0347.
`
`
`
`31. Photoplethysmography has had widespread clinical application, with
`
`the technology utilized in commercially available medical devices, such as pulse
`
`oximeters. Ex. 1021, § 1. A major advance in the clinical use of PPG-based
`
`technology came with the introduction of the pulse oximeter as a non-invasive
`
`method for monitoring patients’ arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2). Ex. 1021, § 2.3;
`
`Ex. 1020, preface. Oxygen saturation of the hemoglobin in arterial blood is
`
`determined by the relative proportions of oxygenated hemoglobin and reduced
`
`hemoglobin in the arterial blood. Ex. 1019 (Pologe - US 5,297,548), 1:20-56; Ex.
`
`1020, pp. 34-38. A pulse oximeter uses PPG signals to determine the oxygen
`
`saturation of the hemoglobin by measuring the difference in the light absorption of
`
`these two forms of hemoglobin. Ex. 1019, 1:20-56, fig. 1 (a display module of a
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`pulse oximeter is shown below); Ex. 1020, pp. 34-38, fig. 12.2. Reduced or
`
`deoxygenated hemoglobin absorbs more light in the red band (600-800 nm) than
`
`does oxyhemoglobin, while oxyhemoglobin absorbs more light in the near infrared
`
`band (800-1000 nm) than does reduced hemoglobin. Ex. 1019, 1:20-56; Ex. 1020,
`
`pp. 34-38, 86-88. Oxygen saturation is then estimated based on the ratio between
`
`the detected intensity of red and infrared light. Ex. 1019, 1:20-56; Ex. 1020, pp.
`
`34-38.
`
`32. The pulse oximeter typically includes a probe which contains two
`
`light emitting diodes, one red and one infrared, and is placed in contact with the
`
`skin. Ex. 1019, 1:20-56; Ex. 1020, pp. 34-38. There were conventionally two types
`
`of probes for pulse oximetry: reflectance and transmittance. Ex. 1020, pp. 86-89.
`
`Reflectance Probe
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020, pp. 87-88, figs. 7.1, 7.2.
`
`
`
`Transmittance Probe
`
`
`
`33. By the late 1990’s, pulse oximetry was recognized worldwide as a
`
`standard of care in anesthesiology and in widespread use in medical facilities. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`1020, preface. The model 9500 pulse oximeter from Nonin Medical, Inc., shown in
`
`the figure below, was a small sensor commercially available more than a decade
`
`before the effective filing date of the ’941 Patent. Ex. 1020, p. 207, fig. 12.5. With
`
`light weight and an extremely small size, it displays heart rate and oxygen
`
`saturation (SpO2).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020, p. 207, fig. 12.5.
`
`A. Wearable Technology
`In recent decades, the desire for small, reliable, low-cost and simple-
`34.
`
`to-use noninvasive (cardiovascular) assessment techniques were key factors that
`
`have propelled the use of photoplethysmography. Ex. 1021, § 2.3. Advances in
`
`opto-electronics and clinical instrumentation have also significantly contributed to
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`FITBIT, Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`its advancement. Ex. 1021, § 2.3. The developments in semiconductor technology,
`
`light emitting diodes (LED), photodiodes, and phototransistors have made
`
`considerable improvements in the size, sensitivity, reliability and reproducibility of
`
`PPG probe design. Ex. 1021, § 2.3. Components (such as LEDs, photodiodes,
`
`accelerometers, and microprocessors) would all become available as integrated
`
`circuits or “chips.” Ex. 1020, § 6.1.4, fig. 6.5; Ex. 10XX (Athan