`
`
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`
`Michael D. Specht
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,652,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,652,040
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ....................................... 3
`A.
`Summary of the Grounds of Unpatentability ........................................ 3
`B.
`Citation of Prior Art .............................................................................. 5
`III. The ’040 Patent ................................................................................................ 8
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 14
`D.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 14
`1. “physiological information” ....................................................................... 15
`2. “selectively remove … unwanted signals from footsteps” ........................ 16
`3. “secondary optical energy” ........................................................................ 17
`IV. Claim 1 is unpatentable over Aceti in view of Dettling, and further in view
`of Stivoric. ..................................................................................................... 18
`A. Overview of Aceti ............................................................................... 18
`B.
`Overview of Dettling ........................................................................... 21
`C.
`Overview of Stivoric ........................................................................... 22
`D. Motivation to Combine Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric ......................... 23
`E.
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................ 27
`[1.P] An earpiece module .................................................................................. 27
`[1.1] an earpiece fitting adapted to be positioned within an ear of a person .... 28
`[1.2] the earpiece fitting comprising: a speaker configured to provide sound
`transmission from a source ........................................................................ 29
`[1.3] the earpiece fitting comprising … an optical emitter, optical detector, and
`acoustic sensor ........................................................................................... 29
`[1.4] wherein the optical emitter is configured to direct optical energy to a
`region of the ear of the person ................................................................... 30
`[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 .................................. 30
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`[1.6] wherein the acoustic sensor is configured to sense footsteps of the
`person ......................................................................................................... 33
`[1.7] the earpiece fitting comprising … a first signal processor configured to
`receive and process signals produced by the optical detector ................... 34
`[1.8] a second signal processor configured to process signals produced by the
`first signal processor, and by the acoustic sensor ...................................... 35
`[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 ......................................................................................................... 36
`[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 ............................................................... 37
`V. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 7, and 56 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Schulze ’692. .................................................................. 39
`A. Overview of Schulze ’692 ................................................................... 39
`B. Motivation to Combine Schulze ’692 with Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric ................................................................................................ 40
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 41
`C.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 42
`D.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 43
`E.
`Claim 56 .............................................................................................. 43
`F.
`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. ............ 44
`A. Overview of Webster........................................................................... 45
`B. Motivation to Combine Webster with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric (or
`with Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, and Schulze ’692) ............................... 45
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 46
`C.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 47
`D.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 48
`E.
`VII. Ground 4: Claims 10 and 47 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Verjus. ............................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`A. Overview of Verjus ............................................................................. 49
`B. Motivation to Combine Verjus with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric ..... 50
`C.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 51
`D.
`Claim 47 .............................................................................................. 53
`VIII. Ground 5: Claim 22 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Charych. ............................................................................................ 53
`A. Overview of Charych .......................................................................... 53
`B.
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 54
`IX. Ground 6: Claims 26 and 28 are unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and
`Stivoric in view of Wendt. ............................................................................. 54
`A. Overview of Wendt ............................................................................. 55
`B. Motivation to Combine Wendt with Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric ..... 55
`C.
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 56
`D.
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 57
`X. Ground 7: Claim 33 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Schulze ’890. .................................................................................... 57
`A. Overview of Schulze ’890 ................................................................... 57
`B.
`Claim 33 .............................................................................................. 58
`XI. Ground 8: Claim 41 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Asada. ............................................................................................... 59
`A. Overview of Asada .............................................................................. 59
`B.
`Claim 41 .............................................................................................. 59
`XII. Ground 9: Claim 42 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Carroll. .............................................................................................. 61
`A. Overview of Carroll............................................................................. 61
`B.
`Claim 42 .............................................................................................. 61
`XIII. Ground 10: Claim 54 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Welles. .............................................................................................. 63
`A. Overview of Welles ............................................................................. 63
`B.
`Claim 54 .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`XIV. Ground 11: Claim 55 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Mac. .................................................................................................. 65
`A. Overview of Mac ................................................................................. 65
`B.
`Claim 55 .............................................................................................. 65
`XV. Ground 12: Claim 57 is unpatentable over Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric in
`view of Mac, and further in view of Schulze ’692. ....................................... 67
`XVI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68
`XVII. Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................................................. 68
`XVIII.Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................ 68
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ....................................................................14
`
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................25
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...............................................................................................68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................68
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for 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
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`John Allen, Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`physiological measurement, Physiological Measurement 28 (2007)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`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
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`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
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`U.S. Patent No. 4,672,976 to Kroll, issued June 16, 1987
`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
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005-1011
`1012
`
`1013-1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021-1023
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`
`1027-1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`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
`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
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`1053
`
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`1058
`
`1059
`1060
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`1064
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070-1143
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`Apple Inc. requests inter partes review of claims 4-10, 22, 26, 28, 33, 41,
`
`42, 47, and 54-57 of United States Patent No. 8,652,040 (“the ʼ040 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’040 patent includes only one independent claim (claim 1), which is
`
`directed towards a wearable earpiece module that includes optical and acoustic
`
`sensors for monitoring both the environment and physiological information about
`
`the wearer. Sarrafzadeh Declaration, Ex. 1003, ¶26. Such monitoring via a
`
`wearable sensing device is not new and has been described in numerous
`
`publications for years preceding the earliest priority date of the ’040 patent. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶26. The various dependent claims challenged in this Petition merely recite
`
`obvious additions or modifications to the wearable earpiece module of claim 1.
`
`Providing optical sensors in a wearable monitoring device was not a new
`
`concept at the time the ’040 Patent was filed. For example, it was very common
`
`for wearable monitors to include an optical sensor for performing pulse oximetry
`
`(also known as photoplethysmography, hereafter referred to as “PPG”). Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶27-31. 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 ¶¶28-29. The intensity of the reflected light depends on the
`
`volume of blood. Id. The volume of blood fluctuates proportionally with the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`cardiac cycle. As a result, a PPG sensor detects a time-varying pulsatile waveform,
`
`or pulse wave, that is synchronized with each heartbeat. Id.
`
`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 ¶32. As this technology became ever smaller and
`
`more robust, PPG sensors were integrated into wearable technology such as
`
`wristwatches, earphones, headsets, etc. Id.
`
`Providing acoustic sensors in a wearable monitoring device was also not a
`
`new concept at the time the ’040 patent was filed. Using a microphone to detect
`
`sounds from the body (also known as auscultatory sensing) had been performed
`
`for years prior to the filing date of the ’040 patent. Ex. 1003, ¶33. In fact, the use
`
`of sound to determine physiological parameters, such as blood pressure, dates
`
`back as early as 1905 when Dr. Nikolai Korotkoff discovered a link between
`
`certain audible sounds and a patient’s blood pressure. Id. These sounds are known
`
`as “Korotkoff sounds” and are still used by physicians today. Id.
`
`Many wearable devices have been described that perform auscultatory
`
`sensing. U.S. Patent No. 4,672,976, issued in 1987 (Ex. 1045), describes a heart
`
`sound sensing device that is designed to be worn on the body and includes an
`
`acoustic transducer for sensing sound waves generated in the patient’s body. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶34. More recently, another U.S. Patent No. 7,539,533, published in 2009
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`but filed in 2006 (Ex. 1046), describes how body sounds are detected using a
`
`microphone integrated into a patch worn on the body. Ex. 1003, ¶35.
`
`Each of the challenged claims also recites that the earpiece module includes
`
`a speaker, a signal processor configured to remove unwanted noise from the
`
`collected signals, and a transmitter to transmit signals to a remote device. But all
`
`of these additional features are well established concepts that have been
`
`implemented in wearable monitoring devices for years before the earliest priority
`
`date of the ’040 patent. Ex. 1003, ¶¶35, 56, 65. Each of these features in
`
`combination with the above mentioned optical and acoustic sensors in an earpiece
`
`device are taught in the prior art as evidenced by the disclosures of Aceti (U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2005/0059870, Ex. 1047), Dettling (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,954,644, Ex. 1048), and Stivoric (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0039254,
`
`Ex. 1049).
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`A.
`Apple requests review of claims 4-10, 22, 26, 28, 33, 41, 42, 47, and 54-57
`
`Summary of the Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`on the following twelve grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 4, 5, 7, 56
`
`Schulze ’692
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric,
`
`§ 103 6
`
`Schulze ’692, and Webster
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 8, 9
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 41
`
`Asada
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 42
`
`Carroll
`
`10
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, &
`
`§ 103 54
`
`Welles
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, & Mac § 103 55
`
`Aceti, Dettling, Stivoric, Mac, &
`
`§ 103 57
`
`Shulze ’692
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`B. Citation of Prior Art
`The ’040 Patent claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 60/905,761 filed March 8, 2007, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/876,128 filed December 21, 2006, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/875,606 filed December 19, 2006. Each of the following prior art documents
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`applied in the grounds of unpatentability qualify as prior art before the earliest
`
`possible priority date, December 19, 2006.1
`
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, Petitioner relies on
`
`the following prior art references:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0059870 (“Aceti”),
`
`published March 17, 2005. (Ex. 1047).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,954,644 (“Dettling”), issued September 21, 1999.
`
`(Ex. 1048).
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0039254 (“Stivoric”),
`
`published February 26, 2004. (Ex. 1049).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,673,692 (“Schulze ’692”), issued October 7, 1997.
`
`(Ex. 1057).
`
`• J. G. Webster, ed., Design of Pulse Oximeters, IOP Publishing Ltd.,
`
`1997 (“Webster”) (Ex. 1017).
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’040 Patent has support under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 such that it is entitled to the benefit of priority of any earlier-filed
`
`application. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to challenge any benefit claim
`
`should patent owner attempt to antedate any art.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0233051 (“Verjus”),
`
`published December 18, 2003. (Ex. 1058).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,378,954 (“Wendt”), filed on October 21, 2005. (Ex.
`
`1059).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,267,721 (“Welles”), issued July 31, 2001. (Ex.
`
`1060).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,022,748 (“Charych”), issued February 8, 2000. (Ex.
`
`1061).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,443,890 (“Schulze ’890”), issued September 3,
`
`2002. (Ex. 1062).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,952,928 (“Carroll”), issued August 28, 1990. (Ex.
`
`1063).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,964,701 (“Asada”), issued October 12, 1999. (Ex.
`
`1064).
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0228463 (“Mac”),
`
`published October 13, 2005. (Ex. 1065).
`
`All references were published more than one year prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date (with the exception of Wendt) and therefore qualify as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). At a minimum, Wendt qualifies as prior art as of its
`
`filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`III. The ’040 Patent
`A. Overview
`The ’040 patent is generally directed to wireless health and environmental
`
`monitors. Ex. 1001, 1:16-18. More specifically, the ’040 patent describes the
`
`integration of compact sensors within an earpiece housing to function as a
`
`physiological monitor, an environmental monitor, and a wireless personal
`
`communicator. Ex. 1001, 1:54-56.
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’040 patent illustrates an example earpiece module that
`
`includes at least one physiological sensor 101, at least one environmental sensor
`
`102, at least one signal processor 103, and a transmitter/receiver 104 within an
`
`earpiece housing 108. Ex. 1001, 10:5-14.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`The physiological sensors 101 may include an acoustic transducer to
`
`measure physiological sounds from the body that travel through the ear canal. Ex.
`
`1001, 22:11-14, 30-42. The signal processor 103 may be configured to take in
`
`sounds received from the physiological sensors 101 and external sounds received
`
`from around the wearer in order to digitally filter out the unwanted sounds from
`
`around the wearer of the device. Ex. 1001, 21:48-57, 22:14-29.
`
`The physiological sensors 101 also include optical detectors for extracting
`
`physiological information from the wearer. Ex. 1001, 23:15-20, 25:3-17. The
`
`optical detector may be used to perform pulse oximetry using visible and infrared
`
`wavelengths of light emitted into the ear region. Ex. 1001, 30:23-43.
`
`The ’040 patent does not explicitly define what sensors constitute the
`
`environmental sensors 102. FIG. 4 of the ’040 patent illustrates the use of a
`
`plurality of external environmental sensors 402, 403, and 404 to sense external
`
`energy from the environment around the wearer of the device. Ex. 1001, 21:25-32.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 4
`
`
`
` The energy collected from the various external environmental sensors is
`
`described as being “any physical energy, such as electrical, magnetic,
`
`electromagnetic, atomic, gravity, mechanical, acoustic, and the like.” Ex. 1001,
`
`21:40-42. As such, the ’040 patent implicitly suggests the inclusion of nearly any
`
`kind of sensor for measuring some form of energy from the environment.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
` The application that ultimately issued as the ’040 patent endured a lengthy
`
`prosecution during which the claims underwent extensive amendment. A total of
`
`four office actions were issued on the merits between 2009 and 2013. Valencell
`
`amended the claims after each office action, and ultimately provided numerous
`
`disparate amendments in response to the last of the four office actions, which
`
`ultimately lead to an allowance of the application. Since claim 1 was the only
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`pending independent claim during prosecution (and is similarly the only issued
`
`independent claim), only claim 1 is discussed in this section.
`
`The first office action was issued on April 16, 2009, rejecting independent
`
`claim 1 as being anticipated by either U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0076972 to
`
`Dorogusker et al. (Ex. 1050) or U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0004547 to
`
`Appelt et al. (Ex. 1051). ’040 Patent Prosecution History, Ex. 1002, p. 105-120.
`
`Claim 1 at the time of the first office action was broadly directed towards a
`
`personal monitoring apparatus having a housing attached to the body of a person, a
`
`physiological sensor, an environmental sensor, a signal processor, and a
`
`transmitter. Ex. 1002, pp. 111-112. In response to the Office Action, Valencell
`
`amended the claim to recite that the housing must be attached to the ear of a
`
`person. Ex. 1002, p. 133.
`
`The second office action was issued on November 27, 2009, rejecting
`
`independent claim 1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2007/0116314 to Grilliot et al. (Ex. 1052) or as being obvious over Appelt in view
`
`of Grilliot. Ex. 1002, pp. 219-33. In response to the second Office Action,
`
`Valencell amended the claim to recite that the signal processor is configured to
`
`extract environmental effects from signals produced by the physiological sensor
`
`and to extract physiological effects from signals produced by the environmental
`
`sensor in order to produce a final processed signal. Ex. 1002, p. 238. Valencell did
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`not provide any explanation for what it means to extract “physiological effects
`
`from signals produced by an environmental sensor.”
`
` The third office action was issued on May 11, 2010, rejecting independent
`
`claim 1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0242976 to
`
`Abreu (Ex. 1053), or as being obvious over Grilliot in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,853,005 to Scanlon (Ex. 1054), or as being obvious over Appelt in view of
`
`Scanlon. Ex. 1002, pp. 272-282. In response to the third Office Action, Valencell
`
`amended the claim to recite that the apparatus includes an optical emitter, optical
`
`detector, and acoustical sensor to detect optical and acoustical energy emanating
`
`from the ear region. The claim was also amended to remove the previous
`
`amendment directed to the extraction of environmental/physiological effects and to
`
`replace it with an amendment stating that the processor selectively removes
`
`unwanted signals produced by the various detectors/sensors. Ex. 1002, p. 290.
`
`The fourth and final office action was issued on June 10, 2013 and rejected
`
`independent claim 1 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2009/0131761 to Moroney III et al. (Ex. 1055) in view of U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2006/0064037 to Shalon et al. (Ex. 1056). Ex. 1002, pp. 333-342. In response
`
`to the fourth Office Action, Valencell heavily amended claim 1 to include a
`
`multitude of various and seemingly disparate limitations, which include:
`
`- adding a speaker to provide sound transmission;
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`- configuring the optical detector to detect energy from the ear region and to
`
`sense an environmental condition;
`
`- configuring the acoustic sensor to sense footsteps of the person;
`
`- splitting the initial signal processor into two separate signal processors,
`
`where the first processor processes signals from the optical detector while the
`
`second processor processes signals from the acoustic sensor and from the first
`
`signal processor; and
`
`- using the second signal processor to remove both unwanted environmental
`
`signals and unwanted signals from footsteps. Ex. 1002, p. 351.
`
`Valencell stated that support for all of these amendments could be
`
`particularly found at FIG. 12 and ¶¶[0020], [0105], [0127], [0128], [0146], and
`
`[0149] of the originally filed application. Ex. 1002, p. 363. However, nothing in
`
`the application appears to relate specifically to the optical detector being
`
`configured to detect both energy from the ear region and to sense an environmental
`
`condition, and to the inclusion of two separate processors. Despite the lack of
`
`support from the specification, the claims where allowed in a notice of allowance
`
`mailed October 8, 2013. Ex. 1002, pp. 428-29.
`
`In the notice of allowance, the Examiner specifically noted that “the noise
`
`reduction feature of Shalon et al. focuses on noises adjacent to the in-the-ear
`
`monitoring device such as chewing, swallowing, and biting, and does not remotely
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`suggest processing acoustic signals such as the user's footsteps to produce cleaner
`
`physiological signals.” Ex. 1002, pp. 429. But as will be discussed herein,
`
`processing acoustic footstep signals to produce cleaner physiological signals was,
`
`in fact, well known as evidenced by Stivoric.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’040 Patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (herein referred to as a “P