Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`July 16, 2020
`
`
`
`July 16, 2020
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`2
`
`Apple advances new evidence and
`argument in Reply
`• Petition: Obvious given Carlson’s teaching:
`
`• Reply: Obvious because increasing pulse rate “generally”
`increases SNR:
`
`Petition at 39
`
`Reply at 1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`3
`
`Apple’s new Reply evidence and
`argument is improper
`Response at 34
`• The petition must identify, “with particularity, . . . the
`grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and
`the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim.”
`• 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)
`
`• “Petitioner’s new rationale explaining its claim mapping in the
`Reply is not based on a previous position Petitioner put forth
`in the Petition; rather, Petitioner posits a rationale about an
`ordinarily skilled artisan’s perspective where none existed
`previously.”
`• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00582, Paper
`No. 34 at 30-31 (PTAB Aug. 5, 2019) (Informative)
`
`• “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in
`reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a
`prima facie case of unpatentability.”
`• Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 73
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`4
`
`Claim limitation missing from the prior art*
`
`• Independent Claims 5 and 13
`• “the light source configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio
`by increasing a light intensity from at least one of the plurality of
`semiconductor sources and by increasing a pulse rate of at least
`one of the plurality of semiconductor sources”
`
`Required functionality: increase SNR
`Required way: by increasing an LED’s pulse rate
`
`* Omni MedSci’s focus on the missing “pulse rate” limitation, is not an admission regarding the other limitations
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`5
`
`The Petition does not make a prima facie
`case for the “pulse rate” limitation
`• Apple’s “pulse rate” limitation argument relies solely on
`the express disclosures of Lisogurski and Carlson
`
`• Neither Lisogurski nor Carlson disclose a device
`configured to increase SNR by increasing an LED’s pulse
`rate
`• So, not “obvious to configure Lisogurski to increase the firing rate
`(frequency) of LEDs as taught by Carlson” (Pet. at 39)
`
`• Apple and its expert do not rely on:
`• “Inherency”
`• “Common Sense”
`• “General knowledge of those skilled in the art”
`• “Industry trends”
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`6
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“light source . . . configured to increase signal-to-
`noise ratio by . . . increasing a pulse rate
`“pulse rate”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`7
`
`“light source”
`
`Claim limitation
`• “a light source
`comprising a plurality of
`semiconductor sources
`that are light emitting
`diodes . . . configured to
`increase signal-to-noise
`ratio by . . . increasing a
`pulse rate of at least one
`of the plurality of
`semiconductor sources”
`
`Preliminary construction
`
`• “a light source containing
`two or more light emitting
`diodes (semiconductor
`sources), wherein at least
`one of the light emitting
`diodes is capable of
`having its pulse rate
`increased to increase a
`signal-to-noise ratio.”
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`8
`
`The claims
`
`“a light source
`comprising a plurality of
`semiconductor sources
`that are light emitting
`diodes . . . configured
`to increase signal-to-
`noise ratio by . . .
`increasing a pulse rate
`of at least one of the
`plurality of
`semiconductor sources”
`
`1. The Board replaces
`“configured to”
`requirement with an
`“is capable of” option
`
`2. The light source must
`be "configured to"
`increase SNR
`• The Board’s construction:
`• Focuses on increasing the
`pulse rate; the claim focuses
`on increasing SNR
`• Removes the claimed actor
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`9
`
`The specification
`
`• “The light source is configured to increase signal-to-noise
`ratio by . . . increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the
`plurality of semiconductor sources” (Ex. 1001 at 5:11–15.)
`
`• “By use of an active illuminator, a number of advantages
`may be achieved” including “higher signal-to-noise ratios.”
`(Ex. 1001 at 16:54-58.)
`
`• Use of an “active illuminator” to achieve “higher signal-to-
`noise ratios” despite “variations due to sunlight” and the
`“effects of the weather, such as clouds and rain.”
`(US2013/075767, Ex 2120 at 25-26, ¶[0079] inc’d. by ref. at Ex. 1001 at 1:33-37.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`10
`
`“capable of” is not a substitute for
`“configured to”
`• “[C]onfigured to” has a narrower meaning than “capable of”
`• Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`2012)
`
`• “[P]lain and ordinary meaning” of “configured to” “requires that the
`device be actually configured to do the function”
`• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-94, 2020 WL
`863976, at *7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2020)
`
`• “[N]one of the general-usage dictionaries consulted by the Court
`defines ‘configure’ as to render merely ‘capable of.’”
`• Perdiem Co, LLC v. IndusTrack LLC, No. 2:15-CV-727-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL
`3633627, at *41 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016)
`
`• “[T]he claim language ‘configured to’ requires structure designed to
`perform the function, not merely structure capable of performing the
`function.”
`• Cook Grp. Inc. v. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc., IPR2017-00132, Paper No. 71
`at 17 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`11
`
`The light source must be "configured to"
`increase SNR
`
`• A light source that “sometimes” increases SNR is not
`"configured to" increase SNR
`
`• Apple’s citations to Dr. MacFarlane’s testimony focus on
`increasing pulse rate
`• The testimony merely shows that increasing pulse rate may (or
`may) not increase SNR
`
`• Apple’s petition did not make these “capable of” or
`“sometimes increase” arguments.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`12
`
`Dr. MacFarlane’s testimony:
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1060 at 82, 84-85
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`13
`
`Why increasing pulse rate only
`“sometimes” increases SNR
`
`Ex. 1060 at 84-85.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`14
`
`Dr. MacFarlane’s testimony (con’t)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`15
`
`Active voice vs. passive voice
`
`• The claims say:
`• “the light source configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio . . . by increasing
`a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of semiconductor sources”
`
`• The specification says:
`• “The light source is configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio by . . .
`increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of semiconductor
`sources.” (5:11–15)
`• “[b]y use of an active illuminator, a number of advantages may be achieved”
`including “higher signal-to-noise ratios.” (16:54-58)
`
`• The Board’s construction permits, e.g., a human, to increase the
`pulse rate
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`16
`
`“pulse rate”
`“pulse rate“ = “number of pulses of light per unit of time”
`
`Petition at 20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`17
`
`Pulse rate examples in ‘533 specification
`have non-zero lower limits
`
`• The patent distinguishes “continuous” from “pulsed” light:
`• “the LED provides the option of continuous wave or pulsed
`mode of operation.” (Ex. 1001 at 19:67-20:2.)
`
`• “a pulse repetition rate between one kilohertz to about
`100 MHz or more.” (Ex. 1001 at 21:57-59.)
`
`• Modulation frequency between “0.1-100kHz.” (‘U.S. Pub.
`2014/0236021, Ex 2121 at 4, ¶[0045] inc’d. by ref. at Ex. 1001, 1:40-42.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`18
`
`APPLE FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA
`FACIE CASE OF OBVIOUSNESS
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`19
`
`A missing limitation is fatal to the
`proposed combination
`• Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337,
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`• Reversing the Board’s obviousness determination, finding that neither
`of the asserted prior art references disclose a claim limitation.
`
`• Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`• Affirming the Board’s conclusion of non-obviousness where neither
`prior art reference disclosed a claim.
`
`• Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342,
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`• Reversing district court’s JMOL of invalidity for obviousness where the
`prior art references, even if combined, failed to disclose a claim
`limitation.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`20
`
`Apple’s obviousness combination
`for the independent claims
`
`+
`
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`21
`
`LISOGURSKI
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`22
`
`Lisogurski: two types of modulation
`
`“cardiac cycle modulation”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“aligned with pulses of the heart” or “other suitable
`physiological cyclical cycle” (Ex. 1011 at 5:25-47.)
`“on the order of 1 Hz” correlating with an average heart
`rate of 60 beats per minute (Id. at 6:28-29.)
`
`“firing rate” can be adjusted to track the cardiac cycle. (Id.
`at 25:45-58; 28:30-39; 29:25-34.)
`
`“drive cycle modulation”
`
`•
`
`“a technique to remove ambient and background
`signals” by measuring ambient light while the LED is off
`and subtracting that measurement from the signals
`received with the light on (Id. at 6:7-30.)
`
`• Exemplary modulation rate of “1 kHz” (Ex. 1011 at 5:48-54; 6:30.)
`• Apple does not rely on this modulation in Lisogurski
`
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`23
`
`Lisogurski does not disclose a “light
`source … configured to increase SNR …
`by increasing a pulse rate”
`• Uses “drive cycle modulation” to address noise
`• “1kHz” (6:30)
`• Does not disclose increasing the 1kHz modulation rate to increase
`SNR
`
`• Uses “cardiac cycle modulation” to remain synchronous
`with heart rate
`• “firing rate” adjustments are to remain synchronous with heart rate
`• 2:1-2; 25:54; 27:48; 28:37-38; 29:33; 30:57; 31:51; 32:13-14; 32:58-59; 33:35,
`etc.
`• Also to reduce power consumption (Abstract; 1:21)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`24
`
`Lisogurski’s “cardiac cycle modulation”
`
`(Ex. 1011, col. 5, lines 25-47.)
`
`(Ex. 1011, col. 21, lines 44-59.)
`
`(Omni's Sur-Reply at 2.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`25
`
`Lisogurski’s optional “drive cycle modulation”
`
`(Ex. 1011, col. 5, lines 48-54.)
`
`(Ex. 1011, col. 6, lines 7-30.)
`
`(Ex. 1011, col. 6, lines 26-31.)
`
`(Omni's Sur-Reply at 2.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`26
`
`Intentionally blank
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`27
`
`Lisogurski also discloses using
`“conventional servo algorithms”
`
`• Discloses increasing emitter
`brightness to address noise
`
`• Does not disclose increasing
`pulse rate (for any reason)
`
`• Apple does not assert that a
`conventional servo algorithm
`increases pulse rate
`
`(‘676 Patent, 5:55-6:6.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`28
`
`The Board: Apple failed to show how Lisogurski
`increases pulse rate to increase SNR
`
`(Paper No. 16, ID at 30-31.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`29
`
`The Board: Rejected Apple’s “sampling
`rate” argument
`
`(Paper No. 16 , ID at 30.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`30
`
`CARLSON
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`31
`
`Carlson teaches an optional modulation at a
`“chosen” frequency beyond ambient noise
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`32
`
`Carlson’s optional modulation at the “chosen” f0
`
`(Continuous Light Source; no modulation)
`
`(Temporarily Modulated Light Source)
`
`Carlson does not teach:
`
`“the light source configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio by increasing a light intensity from at
`least one of the plurality of semiconductor sources and by increasing a pulse rate of at least one of
`the plurality of semiconductor sources”
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`33
`
`The Board incorrectly described the Lisogurski
`and Carlson in its obviousness analysis
`
`Incorrect: Lisogurski teaches
`only increasing brightness to
`address noise
`Incorrect: Carlson teaches
`only introducing modulation
`at a “chosen” rate
`
`(Paper No. 16 , ID at 36.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`34
`
`The Board’s obviousness position on Lisogurski is
`inconsistent with its earlier finding
`Board’s Correct Statement:
`
`Board’s Incorrect Statement:
`
`(Paper No. 16, ID at 30.)
`
`(Paper No. 16, ID at 36.)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`35
`Adding Carlson does not enhance Lisogurski, which the
`Board already determined is not the claimed invention
`
`Optionally modulates the light
`source at 1kHz to minimize noise.
`
`Optionally modulates the light
`source at 1kHz to minimize noise.
`
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`36
`
`In re Merck and In re Keller are inapposite
`
`• “Accepting as true” that Carlson discloses selecting a single pulse rate,
`the Board cited:
`
`• In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
`cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
`based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”)
`
`• In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981) (the test for obviousness is “what the
`combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
`skill in the art”).
`
`• But neither case dealt with a missing limitation in the combination:
`
`• In Merck, the Board rejected the applicant’s assertion that there was no “motivation”
`in the prior art to arrive at the invention
`
`• In Keller, the issue was whether the two prior art references were properly
`combinable
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`37
`
`THE ‘533 PATENT
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`38
`
`‘533 Patent: Overview
`
`Response at 2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`39
`
`‘533 Patent: Fig. 24
`
`Response at 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`40
`
`‘533 Patent: Two operating modes
`
`Response at 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`41
`
`‘533 Patent: Increasing SNR
`
`Response at 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`42
`
`‘533 Patent: Active illuminator
`
`Response at 4-5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`43
`
`‘533 Patent: Non-zero pulse rate
`
`Response at 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`44
`
`Claim 5: the “pulse rate” limitation
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`45
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`46
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Response at 8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`47
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`48
`
`The Board’s construction
`
`Response at 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`49
`
`Two issues with the Board’s construction
`
`Response at 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`50
`
`The Board removed “configured to”
`
`Response at 10-11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`51
`
`The Board broadened the claims
`
`Response at 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`52
`
`“capable of” ≠ “configured to”
`
`Response at 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`53
`
`Other claims use “capable of”
`
`Response at 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`54
`
`The Board’s passive voice construction
`creates ambiguity
`
`Response at 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`55
`
`The specification supports the claimed
`“light source” as the “actor”
`
`Response at 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`56
`
`Apple rewrites the “pulse rate” limitation
`
`Sur-reply at 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`57
`
`Apple sets up a strawman argument
`
`Sur-reply at 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`58
`
`Omni MedSci’s construction is not based
`on “intent”
`
`Sur-reply at 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`59
`
`Apple does not defend the Board’s
`substitution of “capable of”
`
`Sur-reply at 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`60
`
`The ‘533 Patent does not claim mere
`happenstance
`
`Sur-reply at 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`61
`
`No evidence that “increase the pulse rate
`of an LED and that increase will
`necessarily increase SNR as well.”
`
`Sur-reply at 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`62
`
`MacFarlane repeatedly disagreed when
`Apple suggested increasing a pulse rate
`would necessarily increase SNR
`
`Sur-reply at 7-8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`63
`
`MacFarlane gave Apple an example when
`asked
`
`Sur-reply at 9-10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`64
`
`The fallacy of Apple’s argument
`
`Sur-reply at 10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`65
`
`The claims do not recite increasing a
`“sampling rate”
`
`Sur-reply at 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`66
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: PETITION/REPLY
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`67
`
`Pulse rate construction
`
`Petition at 20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`68
`
`Apple says: “increase SNR” construction
`only relevant to Lisogurski alone
`
`Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`69
`
`Apple on the Board’s passive voice
`construction
`
`Reply at 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`70
`
`Apple on the Board’s “is capable of”
`construction
`
`Reply at 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`71
`
`Apple rewrites the claim limitation
`
`Reply at 6-7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`72
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`73
`
`Two reasons why Board should not have
`instituted
`
`Response at 1-2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`74
`
`Why the Board’s institution decision was
`incorrect
`
`Response at 13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`75
`
`LISOGURSKI
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`76
`
`THE BOARD’S PRELIMINARY LISOGURSKI
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`77
`
`The Board’s preliminary findings
`
`Ex. 2122, ¶ 73
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`78
`
`Apple does not dispute the Board’s
`findings
`
`Sur-reply at 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`79
`
`Lisogurski does not disclose increasing
`SNR by increasing pulse rate
`
`Response at 13-14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`80
`
`Lisogurski discloses two types of
`modulation
`
`* * *
`
`Sur-reply at 1-2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`81
`
`ANTHONY’S CITATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT
`LISOGURSKI “ALONE”
`
`FIRING RATE
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`82
`
`Anthony’s citations do not support that
`Lisogurski increases pulse rate for SNR
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`83
`
`Anthony’s citations of Lisogurski do not
`support his conclusions
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`84
`
`No support in Lisogurski for increasing
`firing rate to increase SNR
`
`Response at 16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`85
`
`Analysis of Anthony’s Lisogurski “support”:
`5:55-61, 9:46-52, 27:44-49
`
`Ex. 2122, ¶ 63
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`86
`
`Analysis of Anthony’s Lisogurski “support”:
`37:6-22, 2:1-2, 8:29-35, 25:49-55
`
`Ex. 2122, ¶ 66
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`87
`
`Analysis of Anthony’s Lisogurski “support”:
`Anthony ¶ 116
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`88
`
`Analysis of Anthony’s Lisogurski “support”:
`1:67-2:3, 5:55-61, 9:46-60, 37:6-18
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`89
`
`Lisogurski does not disclose the “pulse
`rate” limitation
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`90
`
`ANTHONY’S CITATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT
`LISOGURSKI “ALONE”
`
`SAMPLING RATE
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
