`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`
`Mark J. Consilvio
`
`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. 8,888,701
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ........................................ 6
`A.
`Statutory grounds .................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Citation of prior art ................................................................................ 7
`III. The ’701 Patent ................................................................................................ 8
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Summary of the prosecution history ................................................... 10
`C.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 11
`D.
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 11
`1. “monitoring” .........................................................................................13
`2. “housing” .............................................................................................13
`3. “within an ear” .....................................................................................14
`4. “physiological” ....................................................................................15
`5. “optical filter” ......................................................................................15
`6. “modulated” .........................................................................................16
`IV. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 14 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ahmed in view of Kimura. ......................................... 17
`A. Overview of Ahmed ............................................................................ 17
`B.
`Overview of Kimura ............................................................................ 20
`C.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 24
`[1.P] A monitoring apparatus ....................................................................24
`[1.1] a housing configured to be positioned within an ear of a subject ....25
`[1.2] a sensor module disposed within the housing ...................................26
`[1.2.1] a printed circuit board (PCB) having opposite first and second
`sides .....................................................................................................27
`[1.2.2] an optical emitter attached to the first side of the PCB, wherein the
`optical emitter directs modulated electromagnetic radiation at a
`target region of the ear ........................................................................28
`
`- i -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`[1.2.3] an optical detector attached to the first side of the PCB adjacent to
`the optical emitter ................................................................................30
`[1.2.4] wherein the optical detector detects an energy response signal
`from the subject that is associated with a physiological condition of
`the subject ............................................................................................31
`[1.2.5] an optical filter overlying at least a portion of the optical detector
` .............................................................................................................31
`[1.2.6] wherein the optical filter attenuates time-varying environmental
`light interference at one or more selected wavelengths from the
`energy response signal ........................................................................33
`[1.2.7] wherein the time-varying environmental light interference is
`caused by sunlight and/or ambient light .............................................34
`[1.2.8] at least one processor that controls operations of the optical
`emitter and/or optical detector ............................................................35
`Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Ahmed and Kimura....................36
`D.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 37
`E.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 40
`F.
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 42
`G.
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 44
`V. Ground 2: Claim 3 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of LeBoeuf. ................. 45
`A. Overview of LeBoeuf .......................................................................... 45
`B.
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 46
`VI. Ground 3: Claims 4, 8, and 13 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of
`O’Neil. ........................................................................................................... 47
`A. Overview of O’Neil ............................................................................. 47
`B.
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 49
`C.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 50
`D.
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 53
`VII. Ground 4: Claim 7 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of Uenishi. .................. 54
`
`- ii -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`A. Overview of Uenishi ........................................................................... 54
`B.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 56
`VIII. Ground 5: Claims 9-12 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of
`Klinghult. ....................................................................................................... 59
`A. Overview of Klinghult ........................................................................ 59
`B.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 60
`C.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 62
`D.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 62
`E.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 66
`IX. Ground 6: Claim 15 is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of Woehrle. ................. 67
`A. Overview of Woehrle .......................................................................... 67
`B.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 69
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 71
`X.
`XI. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .............................................. 71
`XII. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................................................. 71
`
`- iii -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.
`520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.
`396 U.S. 57 (1969) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee
`579 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc.
`725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984) ......................................... 39
`
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................. 34
`
`
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`In re Nilssen
`851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988).......................................................................................... passim
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp.
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 34
`
`
`Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos
`705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc.
`425 U.S. 273 (1976) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`
`- iv -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) .................................................................................................70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...............................................................................................70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................70
`
`- v -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701 to LeBoeuf et al., issued November 18,
`2014
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701 File History
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0281435 to Ahmed et
`al., published November 12, 2009
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,608,562 to Kimura et al., issued August 19, 2003
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0146890 to LeBoeuf et
`al., published June 19, 2008
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,748,254 to O’Neil et al., issued June 8, 2004
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0135717 to Uenishi et
`al., published June 14, 2007
`1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0010461 to Klinghult
`et al., published January 8, 2009
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,846,190 to Woehrle, issued December 8, 1998
`
`1012
`
`John Allen, “Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`physiological measurement,” Physiological Measurement 28 (2007);
`pp. R1-R39
`1013 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0059236 to Margulies
`et al., published March 25, 2004
`1014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0016086 to Inukai et
`al., published January 18, 2007
`
`- vi -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0236647 to Yoon et
`al., published December 25, 2003
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 3,704,706 to Herczfeld et al., issued December 5,
`1972
`1017 Design of Pulse Oximeters (J.G. Webster ed., Institute of Physics
`Publishing 1997)
`
`1018
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. 2007/013054 to
`Schwartz, published February 1, 2007
`1019 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0186387 to Kosuda et
`al., published September 23, 2004
`
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,297,548 to Pologe, issued March 29, 1994
`
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,575,284 to Athan et al., issued November 19, 1996
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,503,016 to Koen, issued April 2, 1996
`1023 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0154098 to Morris et
`al., published June 26, 2008
`1024 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0132798 to Hong et
`al., published June 5, 2008
`1025 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0177162 to Bae et al.,
`published July 24, 2008
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 5,807,267 to Bryars et al., issued September 15,
`1998
`1027 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0054291 to Schulz et
`al., published March 18, 2004
`1028 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209516 to Fraden,
`published September 22, 2005
`
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,906,582 to Kondo et al., issued May 25, 1999
`
`- vii -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1030 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081972 to
`Debreczeny, published April 3, 2008
`1031 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0084879 to Nazarian
`et al., published April 20, 2006
`1032 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065269 to Vetter et
`al., published April 3, 2003
`
`1033
`
`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); pp. 1581-1584
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,243,992 to Eckerle et al., issued September 14,
`1993
`1035 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105556 to Fricke et
`al., published April 23, 2009
`
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 4,955,379 to Hall, issued September 11, 1990
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2007/122375 to
`Crowe et al., published November 1, 2007
`
`Excerpts from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh
`Edition, 2008; p. 603
`
`1039
`
`Excerpts from Communications Standard Dictionary, Third Edition,
`1996; pp. 508-509, 669
`1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0097689 to Prest et al.,
`published April 16, 2009
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`Excerpts from Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, 2010;
`pp. 112, 551, 1011
`
`Excerpts from Dictionary of Information Technology, Second
`Edition, 2010; p. 420
`
`- viii -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts from Communications Standard Dictionary, Second
`Edition, 1989; p. 747
`
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1043
`
`1044-
`1143
`
`- ix -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`Apple Inc. requests inter partes review of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,888,701 (“the ʼ701 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), entitled “Apparatus and Methods for
`
`Monitoring Physiological Data during Environmental Interference.”
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Prior to the ’701 Patent, physiological monitoring already encompassed a
`
`vast array of well-known devices and monitoring techniques. Sarrafzadeh
`
`Declaration, Ex. 1003, ¶¶25-26. One such prevailing application, known as
`
`photoplethysmography (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PPG’), had long been in use
`
`in hospitals and clinical settings, and, by 2011, had become a ubiquitous wearable
`
`technology—having been combined with various devices, such as wristwatches
`
`and headphones. The technique was introduced in 1937 and, by 2011, 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.
`
`1003, ¶¶25-26.
`
`Photoplethysmography (PPG) refers to the use of light to measure the
`
`changes in blood volume in the tissue of a living body. Ex. 1003, ¶26. 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.
`
`1003, ¶27. The intensity of the reflected light depends on the volume of blood. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶27. The volume of blood fluctuates proportionally with the cardiac cycle.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`Ex. 1003, ¶27. As a result, a PPG sensor detects a time-varying pulsatile
`
`waveform, or pulse wave, that is synchronized with each heartbeat. Ex. 1003, ¶27.
`
`A 1972 patent to Herczfeld 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. 1003, ¶28; Herczfeld, Ex. 1016. 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. 1016, 2:60-
`
`3:22, FIG. 1 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`Light source
`Housing
`
`Photodetector
`
`Incident
`light
`
`Reflected
`light
`Ex. 1016, FIG. 1 (annotations added)
`
`
`
`In operation, Herczfeld’s probe was placed upon the patient’s finger such
`
`that blood flowing in the finger’s capillaries reflected incident red light. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶29. The intensity of the reflected light was understood to be inversely proportional
`
`to the amount of blood flowing in the finger. Ex. 1003, ¶29. For each heartbeat,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`blood pumped into and out of the capillaries, thereby causing a periodic decrease
`
`and increase in the reflected light intensity. Ex. 1003, ¶29. The detected periodic
`
`waveform was known to represent a volume of the circulating blood synchronized
`
`to each heartbeat. Ex. 1003, ¶29. This pulsatile waveform was known as a
`
`photoplethysmographic pulse wave. Ex. 1003, ¶29.
`
`Webster, Ex. 1017, p. 47, FIG. 4.4
`
`
`
`Hence, as of the earliest claimed priority date, photoplethysmography was a
`
`known optical measurement technique used to detect blood volume changes in
`
`living tissue.1 Ex. 1003, ¶¶26-30. The basic form of PPG technology requires only
`
`1 The idealized model of absorbed and transmitted light in living tissue (shown
`
`above) illustrates that pulsation of arterial blood can dominate the pulse wave
`
`signal and the contribution from venous blood is therefore often ignored while the
`
`subject is at rest. As discussed herein, it was also known, however, that body
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`a few opto-electronic components: a light source (typically red or near infrared) to
`
`illuminate the tissue (commonly at the ear, wrist, or finger) and a photodetector to
`
`measure a pulse wave due to the small variations in light intensity associated with
`
`changes in blood volume. Ex. 1003, ¶30. A simple, appropriately programmed
`
`signal processor could extract heart rate and a variety of other physiological
`
`parameters from the pulse wave. Ex. 1003, ¶30.
`
`Because these monitoring instruments made optical measurements, such
`
`instruments were susceptible to noise from environmental and other extraneous
`
`light. Ex. 1003, ¶36. Optical interference occurred when bright light from an
`
`external source (e.g., ambient light) reached an optical detector (such as a
`
`photodiode), or when light reached the optical detector without passing through a
`
`pulsatile arteriolar bed (known as optical shunting). Ex. 1003, ¶36. For example,
`
`when the intensity of environmental light (e.g., sunlight) was high, the
`
`environmental light might saturate the detector such that the detector could not
`
`differentiate between the desired physiological signal from the ambient light signal
`
`and, hence, the monitoring instrument could not make a proper measurement. Ex.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶36. In addition to environmental light interference, irradiated light from
`
`
`movement (such as walking, running, and the like) can significantly affect venous
`
`blood flow and hence the PPG signal, which cannot be ignored. Ex. 1003, ¶30.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`the optical emitter that found its way to the optical detector without passing
`
`through the desired tissue region would also negatively impact monitoring. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶36. This phenomenon known as optical shunting would interfere with the
`
`desired signal from the measurement region. Ex. 1003, ¶36. The figure below
`
`illustrates environmental light interference and optical shunting with a finger-worn
`
`sensor. Ex. 1003, ¶36; Webster, Ex. 1017, p. 185, FIG. 11.3.
`
`Ex. 1017, p. 185, FIG. 11.3
`
`
`
`One well-known way to minimize unwanted light incident upon the optical
`
`detector was to place some type of optical filter over the optical detector. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶38. This would allow light of wavelengths of interest to pass through the optical
`
`filter and reach the optical detector, but did not allow extraneous light of other
`
`wavelengths to pass through the optical filter. Ex. 1003, ¶38. Other techniques,
`
`related to packaging, signal processing, and optical control, were also known to
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`improve this ratio between the optical signal of interest and the optical signal from
`
`unwanted, extraneous light. Ex. 1003, ¶38. It was not uncommon to use a
`
`combination of these types of techniques to reduce the effects of ambient light
`
`interference. Ex. 1003, ¶38.
`
`Accordingly, well prior to the claimed monitoring apparatus of the ’701
`
`Patent, optical sensors had been designed to maximize the signal directly from the
`
`measurement region and to reject unwanted, extraneous light through the use of
`
`optical filters, light-shielding materials, and other conventional extraneous light
`
`control means.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`A.
`Apple requests review of claims 1 through 15 on the following grounds:
`
`Statutory grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statutory Basis Claim(s)
`Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Ahmed & Kimura
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 5, 6,
`14
`
`Ahmed, Kimura & LeBoeuf
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`3
`
`Ahmed, Kimura & O’Neil
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4, 8, 13
`
`Ahmed, Kimura & Uenishi
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`7
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ahmed, Kimura & Klinghult
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Ahmed, Kimura & Woehrle
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`9-12
`
`15
`
`B. Citation of prior art
`The ’701 Patent claims the benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 61/436,664 filed January 27, 2011. Each of the following prior art
`
`documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability qualify as prior art before the
`
`earliest possible priority date, January 27, 2011.2
`
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, Apple relies on the
`
`following prior art references:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0281435 (“Ahmed”),
`
`published November 12, 2009;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,608,562 (“Kimura”), issued August 19, 2003;
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0146890 (“LeBoeuf”),
`
`published June 19, 2008;
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’701 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.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,748,254 (“O’Neil”), issued June 8, 2004;
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0135717 (“Uenishi”),
`
`published June 14, 2007;
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0010461 (“Klinghult”),
`
`published January 8, 2009; and
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,846,190 to Woehrle, issued December 8, 1998.
`
`All references were published more than one year prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date and therefore qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`III. The ’701 Patent
`A. Overview
`The ’701 Patent is directed to a wearable monitoring apparatus for use in
`
`physiological monitoring techniques, such as pulse oximetry or
`
`photoplethysmography. Ex. 1001, 13:19-61; Ex. 1003, ¶52. The apparatus includes
`
`a housing positioned in the ear of a subject and a sensor module with (1) an optical
`
`emitter that directs energy at a target region of the subject, (2) an optical detector
`
`that detects an energy response signal—or physiological condition—from the
`
`subject, (3) an optical filter that removes environmental interference from the
`
`energy response signal, and (4) a processor that controls operations of the emitter
`
`or detector. Ex. 1001, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶52. The sensor module may further
`
`include a printed circuit board (PCB) for mounting of the emitter and detector, a
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`lens for each of the emitter and detector, and even an additional optical sensor as
`
`illustrated below. Ex. 1003, ¶52.
`
`Sensor Module
`
`First Aperture
`
`Overmold Layer
`
`Second Aperture
`
`First Side
`
`Connection / Wiring
`
`Second Side
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 7 (annotations added)
`
`
`
`The optical filter 710 is configured to attenuate (e.g., reduce or block) light
`
`at selected wavelengths to remove interference from sunlight or ambient light, and
`
`a light-opaque material 740 prevents ambient light from interfering with the optical
`
`detector. Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:2; Ex. 1003, ¶53. A digital filter may also be used to
`
`further remove the effects of sunlight or ambient light that does reach the detector
`
`via signal processing techniques. Ex. 1001, 23:1-12; Ex. 1003, ¶53.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`As illustrated below in FIGs. 9A and 9B, the sensor module may be placed
`
`in a housing (such as an earbud housing) and worn in the ear. Ex. 1001, FIGs. 9A-
`
`9B; Ex. 1003, ¶54.
`
`Earbud
`
`Lenses
`
`Earbud
`Housing
`Opening
`
`Earbud Housing
`
`Lenses
`
`Earbud Housing
`
`Speaker
`
`Supporting
`Arm
`
`Supporting Arm
`
`Lenses
`
`Lenses
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGs. 9A-9B (annotations added)
`
`
`
`Summary of the prosecution history
`
`B.
`The prosecution history shows that the issued claims of the ’701 Patent were
`
`never substantively rejected. See generally ’701 Patent File History, Ex. 1002.
`
`Claims 11-18, 20-25, and 53 of the underlying application were indicated to
`
`contain allowable subject matter without rejection. Ex. 1002, pp. 0171-0172 (1st
`
`Office Action dated Dec. 17, 2013). The other claims of the application were
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`rejected and eventually cancelled. See Ex. 1002, pp. 0213-0215 (Reply dated Sept.
`
`22, 2014). The only notable difference between the rejected claims and the allowed
`
`claims was that the allowed claims included a printed circuit board and a housing
`
`configured to be positioned in the ear. See Ex. 1002, pp. 0185-0187 (Reply dated
`
`Mar. 10, 2014).
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’701 Patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the relevant time would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a related field of study, or equivalent
`
`experience, and at least two years of experience in studying or developing
`
`physiological sensors. Ex. 1003, ¶56. A POSA would also be familiar with optical
`
`system design and signal processing. Ex. 1003, ¶56.
`
`D. Claim construction
`Claim terms of the ʼ701 Patent are interpreted according to their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`Under BRI, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the patentee “demonstrate[s]
`
`an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by
`
`including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`
`367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004).3
`
`Though Petitioner has attempted to provide proper constructions as required
`
`by PTO Rules under the broadest reason interpretation standard, the grounds
`
`presented herein are based in prior art with due consideration to a narrow
`
`construction of the claimed apparatus. Thus, even if the Board disagrees with the
`
`Petitioner’s constructions, the grounds presented herein would likely still be
`
`applicable even under a narrower construction of the claim terms and phrases.
`
`The ’701 Patent includes the following statement regarding claim
`
`construction:
`
`Unless otherwise defined, all terms (including technical
`and scientific terms) used herein have the same meaning
`as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art to which this invention belongs. It will be further
`understood
`that
`terms, such as
`those defined
`in
`commonly used dictionaries, should be interpreted as
`having a meaning that is consistent with their meaning in
`the context of the specification and relevant art and
`should not be interpreted in an idealized or overly formal
`sense unless expressly so defined herein.
`
`3 Petitioner reserves the right to present different constructions in another
`
`forum where a different claim construction standard applies.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`OMNI 2015
`IPR 2019-00913
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,888,701
`Ex. 1001, 9:62-10:4. Yet, one phrase “optical filter” (recited in claims 1 and 15) is
`
`not used in a consistent manner or in a manner consistent with its ordinary
`
`meaning, as discussed below.
`
`“monitoring”
`
`1.
`According to the ’701 Patent specification:
`
`The term “monitoring” refers to the act of measuring,
`quantifying, qualifying, estimating, sensing, calculating,
`interpolating, extrapolating