IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`91
`
`Lisogurski increases sampling rate to
`optimize power consumption
`
`Response at 15-16
`
`Ex. 2122, ¶ 73
`
`
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`91
`
`Lisogurski increases sampling rate to
`optimize power consumption
`
`Response at 15-16
`
`Ex. 2122, ¶ 73
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`92
`
`Lisogurski teaches setting sampling rate
`based on firing rate, not the other way
`around
`
`Response at 15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`93
`
`APPLE ON LISOGURSKI
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`94
`
`The Board: Lisogurski alone does not
`disclose the “pulse rate” limitation
`
`Reply at 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`95
`
`Apple’s supposed “undisputed facts”
`about Lisogurski
`
`Not for
`SNR
`
`Reply at 16-19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`96
`
`Apple’s supposed “undisputed facts”
`about Lisogurski
`
`Not firing
`rate
`
`Not by
`changing
`firing rate
`
`Reply at 16-19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`97
`
`Anthony mixes “sampling rate” and “firing
`rate”
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`98
`
`Sampling rate ≠ firing/pulse rate
`
`Ex. 1060 at 59
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`99
`
`CARLSON
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`100
`
`Carlson’s “basic idea” does not have a
`modulated light source
`
`Sur-reply at 11-12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`101
`
`Carlson’s solution to SNR issues is to
`temporarily modulate unmodulated light
`
`Sur-reply at 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`102
`
`Apple agrees Carlson temporarily
`modulates
`
`Sur-reply at 12-13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`103
`
`Apple has no evidence that Carlson
`increases pulse rate
`
`Sur-reply at 13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`104
`
`Apple has no evidence that Carlson
`consumes excessive battery power
`
`Sur-reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`105
`
`Carlson does not disclose “increasing a
`pulse rate”
`
`Response at 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`106
`
`Carlson chooses the (single) frequency
`
`Response at 17-18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`107
`
`Anthony misreads Carlson Fig. 7c
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`108
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Carlson
`Fig. 8
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`109
`
`Deconstructing Anthony’s analysis of
`Carlson
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`110
`
`Deconstructing Anthony’s analysis of
`Carlson – part 2
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`111
`
`Carlson: Shifting the power spectrum
`does not increate a pulse rate
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`112
`
`Carlson does not increase the modulation
`frequency of the pulsed light
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`113
`
`APPLE ON CARLSON
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`114
`
`Carlson “temporarily” modulates
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`Yes
`
`Reply at 14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`115
`
`CARLSON’S DOES NOT FILL
`LISOGURSKI’S GAP
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`116
`
`The references do not suggest increasing
`the pulse rate for any reason
`
`Sur-reply at 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`117
`
`Carlson adds “less than nothing” to
`Lisogurski
`
`Sur-reply at 2-3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`118
`
`Anthony’s reason to combine is incorrect
`because he misunderstands Carlson
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`119
`
`“Anthony has no other basis for asserting
`obviousness”
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`120
`
`No prima facie case when Carlson does
`not teach an increasing pulse rate for
`SNR
`
`Response at 25
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`121
`
`No argument or evidence that “increasing
`a pulse rate” is obvious if that limitation is
`not disclosed in Lisogurski or Carlson
`
`Response at 23
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`122
`
`Lisogurski+Carlson ≠ obviousness
`
`Response at 25-26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`123
`
`REPLY: REASON TO COMBINE
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`124
`
`Apple claims: Lisogurski+Carlson =
`obviousness
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Reply at 1-2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`125
`
`APPLE’S UNTIMELY/IMPROPER
`ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`126
`
`Improper to use new evidence/argument
`in Reply
`
`Response at 27
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`127
`
`Apple’s untimely and erroneous argument
`based on dependent Carlson claims
`
`Sur-reply at 14-15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`128
`
`Apple’s untimely and erroneous “common
`sense” argument
`
`Sur-reply at 15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`129
`
`APPLE’S NEW “GENERAL KNOWLEDGE”
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`130
`
`Apple claims “general knowledge” that
`increased pulse rate “will” “necessarily”
`increase SNR
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Reply at 1, 3, 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`131
`
`Apple claims “general knowledge” that
`increased the pulse rate “will generally
`increase” SNR
`
`Reply at 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`132
`
`Apple claims Lisogurski “is consistent with
`the general knowledge”
`
`Lisogurski
`says “may”
`(and
`“sampling
`rate”)
`
`Reply at 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`133
`
`CASELAW
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`134
`
`Caselaw: Improper hindsight
`• “The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified
`would not have made the modification obvious unless the
`prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”
`• In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
`
`• “This form of hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a
`roadmap to find its prior art components, would discount
`the value of combining various existing features or
`principles in a new way to achieve a new result—often the
`very definition of invention.”
`• Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`135
`
`Caselaw: Apple relies on Merck, Keller,
`and MCM Portfolio
`
`Reply at 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`136
`
`Flaws in Apple’s Reply
`
`Sur-reply at 1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00916 Ex. 2124
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`137
`
`Conclusion
`
`Ex. 2122
`
`
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
