throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MAJID SARRAFZADEH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`APL1003
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications ................................................................................................... 4
`III. Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 7
`IV. Background and State of the Art ...................................................................12
`A. Wearable Optical Sensors .......................................................................12
`B. Wearable Acoustic Sensors .....................................................................16
`C. Data Transmission from Wearable Sensors ............................................17
`IV. The ’040 Patent ..............................................................................................18
`A. Overview .................................................................................................18
`B. Level of ordinary skill in the art ..............................................................20
`C. Claim construction ..................................................................................21
`1. “physiological information” ............................................................21
`2. “selectively remove … unwanted signals from footsteps” .............22
`3. “secondary optical energy” .............................................................24
`Claim 1 is unpatentable over Aceti in view of Dettling, and further in view
`of Stivoric. .....................................................................................................24
`A. Overview of Aceti ...................................................................................25
`B. Overview of Dettling ...............................................................................28
`C. Overview of Stivoric ...............................................................................29
`D. Motivation to combine Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric ..............................31
`E. Independent Claim 1 ...............................................................................36
`[1.P] An earpiece module .......................................................................36
`[1.1] an earpiece fitting adapted to be positioned within an ear of a
`person...............................................................................................37
`[1.2] the earpiece fitting comprising: a speaker configured to provide
`sound transmission from a source ...................................................38
`[1.3] the earpiece fitting comprising … an optical emitter, optical
`detector, and acoustic sensor ...........................................................38
`[1.4] wherein the optical emitter is configured to direct optical energy to
`a region of the ear of the person ......................................................39
`
`V.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`[1.5] wherein the optical detector is configured to sense secondary
`optical energy emanating from the ear region and to sense at least
`one environmental condition in a vicinity of the person .................40
`[1.6] wherein the acoustic sensor is configured to sense footsteps of the
`person...............................................................................................43
`[1.7] the earpiece fitting comprising … a first signal processor
`configured to receive and process signals produced by the optical
`detector ............................................................................................45
`[1.8] a second signal processor configured to process signals produced
`by the first signal processor, and by the acoustic sensor.................46
`[1.9] second signal processor configured to … selectively remove
`unwanted environmental signals and unwanted signals from
`footsteps to produce processed signals containing cleaner
`physiological information from the person .....................................47
`[1.10] a transmitter responsive to the second signal processor that is
`configured to transmit the processed signals containing cleaner
`physiological information to a remote terminal ..............................48
`V. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 7, and 56 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Schulze ’692. ..................................................................49
`A. Overview of Schulze ’692 .......................................................................49
`B. Motivation to Combine Schulze ’692 with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric
` .................................................................................................................51
`C. Claim 4 ....................................................................................................52
`D. Claim 5 ....................................................................................................53
`E. Claim 7 ....................................................................................................55
`F. Claim 56 ..................................................................................................56
`VI. Grounds 2 and 3: Claim 6 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, and
`Schulze ’692, and further in view of Webster. Claims 8 and 9 are
`unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in view of Webster. ............57
`A. Overview of Webster ..............................................................................57
`B. Motivation to Combine Webster with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric (or
`with Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, and Schulze ’692) ...................................58
`C. Claim 6 ....................................................................................................59
`D. Claim 8 ....................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`E. Claim 9 ....................................................................................................61
`VII. Ground 4: Claims 10 and 47 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Verjus. .............................................................................62
`A. Overview of Verjus .................................................................................62
`B. Motivation to Combine Verjus with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric .........63
`C. Claim 10 ..................................................................................................64
`D. Claim 47 ..................................................................................................67
`VIII. Ground 5: Claim 22 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Charych. ............................................................................................67
`A. Overview of Charych ..............................................................................67
`B. Claim 22 ..................................................................................................68
`IX. Ground 6: Claims 26 and 28 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Wendt. .............................................................................69
`A. Overview of Wendt .................................................................................69
`B. Motivation to Combine Wendt with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric .........69
`C. Claim 26 ..................................................................................................70
`D. Claim 28 ..................................................................................................71
`X. Ground 7: Claim 33 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Schulze ’890. ....................................................................................72
`A. Overview of Schulze ’890 .......................................................................72
`B. Claim 33 ..................................................................................................72
`XI. Ground 8: Claim 41 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Asada. ...............................................................................................74
`A. Overview of Asada ..................................................................................74
`B. Claim 41 ..................................................................................................74
`XII. Ground 9: Claim 42 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Carroll. ..............................................................................................76
`A. Overview of Carroll ................................................................................76
`B. Claim 42 ..................................................................................................76
`XIII. Ground 10: Claim 54 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Welles. ..............................................................................................78
`A. Overview of Welles .................................................................................78
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`B. Claim 54 ..................................................................................................78
`XIV. Ground 11: Claim 55 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Mac. ..................................................................................................80
`A. Overview of Mac .....................................................................................80
`B. Claim 55 ..................................................................................................80
`XV. Ground 12: Claim 57 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Mac, and further in view of Schulze ’692. .......................................82
`A. Claim 57 ..................................................................................................82
`XVI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................84
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040 to LeBoeuf et al., issued February 18,
`2014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040 File History
`
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005-1011
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`1012
`
`John Allen, Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`physiological measurement, Physiological Measurement 28 (2007)
`
`1013-1016
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`J. G. Webster, ed., Design of Pulse Oximeters, IOP Publishing Ltd.,
`1997
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2007/013054
`to Schwartz, published February 1, 2007
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,548 to Pologe, issued March 29, 1994
`
`1021-1023
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0132798 to Hong et
`al., published June 5, 2008
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,267 to Bryars et al., issued September 15,
`1998
`
`1027-1044
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`1045
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,672,976 to Kroll, issued June 16, 1987
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,539,533 to Tran, issued May 26, 2009
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0059870 to Aceti,
`published March 17, 2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,954,644 to Dettling et al., issued September 21,
`1999
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0039254 to Stivoric
`et al., published February 26, 2004
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0076972 to
`Dorogusker et al., published March 27, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0004547 to Appelt et
`al., published January 8, 2004
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0116314 to Grilliot et
`al., published May 24, 2007
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0242976 to Abreu,
`published December 2, 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,853,005 to Scanlon, issued December 29, 1998
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0131761 to Moroney
`III et al., published May 21, 2009
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0064037 to Shalon et
`al., published March 23, 2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,673,692 to Schulze et al., issued October 7, 1997
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0233051 to Verjus et
`al., published December 18, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,378,954 to Wendt, issued May 27, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,267,721 to Welles, issued July 31, 2001
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,022,748 to Charych et al., issued February 8,
`2000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,443,890 to Schulze et al., issued September 3,
`2002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,952,928 to Carroll et al., issued August 28, 1990
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,964,701 to Asada et al., issued October 12, 1999
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0228463 to Mac et
`al., published October 13, 2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 to LeBoeuf et al., issued December 30,
`2014
`
`H. Harry Asada et al., “Mobile Monitoring with Wearable
`Photoplethysmographic Biosensors,” IEEE Engineering in
`Medicine and Biology Magazine, May/June 2003, pp. 28-40
`Yuri Shevchenko et al., “90th Anniversary of the Development by
`Nikolai S. Korotkoff of the Ascultatory Method of Measuring
`Blood Pressure,” Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 2, July 15, 1996; pp.
`116-118
`
`Definitions of “blackbody” and “blackbody radiation”, McGraw-
`Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 4th Edition,
`McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1989); p. 223
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh, declare as follows:
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`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. 8,652,040 (“the
`
`’040 patent”), titled “Telemetric Apparatus for Health and Environmental
`
`Monitoring,” and its field of endeavor.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`’040 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002). The ’040 Patent relates to an
`
`“apparatus for monitoring various physiological and environmental factors” where
`
`“an earpiece functions as a physiological monitor, environmental monitor, and a
`
`wireless personal communicator.” Ex. 1001, 1:46-48, 1:54-56. I am familiar with
`
`the technology and the state of the art described in the ’040 Patent as of its June 12,
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`2007 filing date, as well as the technology and state of the art as of its earliest
`
`claimed December 19, 2006 priority date.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with each exhibit cited herein. I
`
`confirm that to the best of my knowledge 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 ’040 Patent and the references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’040 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 4, 5, 7, 56
`
`Schulze ’692
`
`Aceti,
`
`Dettling,
`
`Stivoric,
`
`§ 103 6
`
`Schulze ’692, and Webster
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`§ 103 8, 9
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`Webster
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 10, 47
`
`Verjus
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 22
`
`Charych
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 26, 28
`
`Wendt
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 33
`
`Schulze ’890
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 41
`
`Asada
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 42
`
`Carroll
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`10
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`Welles
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`§ 103 54
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, & Mac § 103 55
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, Mac, &
`
`§ 103 57
`
`Shulze ’692
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`I became an Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`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
`
`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).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`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 ’040 Patent claims. I understand that the disclosures of the ’040 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
`
`been instructed to consider the time of the purported invention of the ’040 Patent to
`
`be December 19, 2006 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 ’040 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.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. My
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`I also understand that obviousness may be established by combining
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`• 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;
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`as a guide. My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of 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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`IV. Background and State of the Art
`26. The ’040 Patent describes and claims a wearable earpiece module that
`
`includes a variety of hardware components. These components include processors,
`
`an optical sensor, an acoustic sensor, a speaker, and a transmitter. But the
`
`incorporation of these components into a wearable device, such as an earpiece, is
`
`not a new concept and has been described in numerous publications for years prior
`
`to the December 19, 2006 priority date of the ’040 Patent. In the following
`
`sections, I will briefly describe the state of the art for wearable optical sensors,
`
`wearable acoustic sensors, and data transmission for wearable sensors during the
`
`time before the December 19, 2006 priority date of the ’040 Patent.
`
`A. Wearable Optical Sensors
`27. One of the most common optical sensing technique employed in
`
`wearable devices for detecting physiological conditions is known as
`
`photoplethysmography (hereinafter also referred to as “PPG” or “pulse oximetry”).
`
`Hong, Ex. 1024, ¶17, FIG. 1; Bryars, Ex. 1026, FIGs. 1, 6, 7; Asada Article, Ex.
`
`1067, p. 28. The technique was introduced in 1937 and had become a ubiquitous
`
`part of physiological monitoring long before the ʼ040 Patent was filed. Allen, Ex.
`
`1012, § 2.3. By 2006, 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. 1012, § 2.3.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`28. 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. 1012, § 1. The intensity of the reflected light depends on the
`
`volume of blood. Id. The volume of blood fluctuates proportionally with the
`
`cardiac cycle. Id. As a result, a PPG sensor detects a time-varying pulsatile
`
`waveform, or pulse wave, that is synchronized with each heartbeat. Id.
`
`29. Hence, photoplethysmography (PPG) was an old, well-known optical
`
`measurement technique used to detect blood volume changes in living tissue. Ex.
`
`1012, § 1; Webster, Ex. 1017, 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. 1012, §§ 1, 2.4; Ex. 1017, 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. 1012, § 3; Schwartz, Ex. 1018, 5:5-9, 10:7-20.
`
`30. PPG had also found widespread use in pulse oximeters. 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. 1012, § 2.3; Ex. 1017, Preface. Oxygen saturation of
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`the hemoglobin in arterial blood is determined by the relative proportions of
`
`oxygenated hemoglobin and reduced hemoglobin in the arterial blood. Pologe, Ex.
`
`1020, 1:20-56; Ex. 1017, 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. 1020, 1:20-56, FIG. 1
`
`(displayed below).
`
`
`
`31. 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. 1020, 1:20-56; Ex. 1017, pp. 34-38. There were conventionally two types
`
`of probes for pulse oximetry: reflectance and transmittance. Ex. 1017, pp. 86-89.
`
`FIGs. 7.1 and 7.2 from Webster have been provided below to illustrate the
`
`differences between reflectance and

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket