DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`U.S. Patent No. 10,188,299
`IPR2020-00175
`March 18, 2021
`
`Ex. 2132
`
`
`
`Omni MedSci’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`U.S. Patent No. 10,188,299
`IPR2020-00175
`March 18, 2021
`
`Ex. 2132
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`“the system configured to increase the
`signal-to-noise ratio . . . by increasing a
`pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of
`semiconductor sources from an initial pulse
`rate”
`
`The “pulse rate”
`limitation
`• No claim construction
`needed: apply plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`• Differs from the ‘533
`patent, which did not
`recite:
`• “the system
`configured”
`• “from an initial pulse
`rate”
`
`Paper 11, DI, p. 19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`LISOGURSKI ALONE
`The Petition has only two pages (pp. 48-49) addressing the “pulse rate” limitation
`on Lisogurski alone
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`CCM firing
`rate changes do not affect
`SNR
`
`Ex.2131, ¶81
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`The Petition bases its argument on the false premise that
`increasing the sampling rate increases the firing rate
`• Apple claims: “Lisogurski teaches that as the sample rate increases, the
`firing rate of the LED also increases.” (Pet. 49)
`
`• Lisogurski contains no such teaching (Ex. 2131, MacFarlane Decl., ¶¶72-75)
`
`• Increasing the sampling rate does not change the firing rate (Ex. 1011 35:5-
`31):
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Lisogurski does not say changing the sampling rate changes
`the firing rate
`Sampling with LED “on”
`
`Sampling with LED “off”
`
`Ex.1011, 35:10-31
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Apple’s Reply improperly raises new arguments
`“It is thus informative to look at the science behind variables affecting SNR” (Reply p. 3)
`1.
`“[G]enerally speaking . . . increasing the pulse rate of an LED will increase SNR” (citing only
`MacFarlane Dep. Tr.) (Reply pp. 4-6 & 7)
`“This increase in the firing rate can increase SNR by reducing noise, and such noise can
`Not
`represent 1%-4% of the computed PPG signal. Ex.1011, 42:50-54; see id., 25:66-26:14.”
`(Reply p. 8)
`argued/
`cited in
`“-916 FWD at 30 (‘Thus, a light source is ‘configured’ to increase signal-to-noise by
`increasing LED pulse rate when it is ‘capable’ of doing so[.]’” (Reply p. 10-11)
`Petition
`““whether [SNR] increases with increasing pulse rate depends on an external factor—the
`noise spectrum in the environment within which the device operates. But the claim is
`directed to the device itself, regardless of the environment in which it operates.” -916
`FWD, 30.” (Reply p. 11)
`“Lisogurski’s teachings . . . provide that cardiac cycle modulation increases SNR in the
`presence of Gaussian noise of 0-5 Hz. Ex.1011, 41:46-52.” (Reply p. 11)
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`New arguments are improper in a Reply
`• A finding of unpatentability must be based on arguments made in the
`Petition:
`
`“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
`
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere
`to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the
`‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2016)
`
`“The statute [35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3)] hinges inter partes review on the filing of a
`petition challenging specific patent claims; it makes the petition the
`centerpiece of the proceeding . . . .”
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1358 (2018)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`The “science”: Lisogurski’s tiny CCM firing rate increases do
`not increase SNR
`• It is irrelevant that “in general” firing rate increases sometimes
`increase SNR
`• Not proof that Lisogurski’s tiny CCM increases affect SNR
`
`• Lisogurski never teaches or suggests increasing firing rate to
`increase SNR.
`
`• Lisogurski teaches other changes:
`• Increased LED brightness (9:46-52)
`• Constantly illuminated LEDs (37:15-17)
`• Change in duty cycle (37:17-20)
`• Swap function of IR and Red LEDs (37:20-22 and 24:41-57)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Omni never “admitted” Lisogurski discloses “increasing the
`LED firing rate for the purpose of increasing SNR”
`• Omni has consistently disputed that Lisogurski discloses the claimed
`system that is configured to increase an initial pulse rate to increase SNR.
`
`• Omni only acknowledged that CCM—in comparison to a system lacking
`CCM altogether—“may” improve SNR. (POPR, p.16.)
`• By correlating CCM to the cardiac cycle
`
`• The Board’s comments from -916FWD pp. 29-30 do not apply because
`the “pulse rate” limitation here differs from the ‘533 patent’s “pulse rate”
`limitation:
`• “system” vs. “light source”
`• “from an initial pulse rate” vs. unstated
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`No “1%-4%” increase in SNR by increasing firing rate
`• Lisogurski does not disclose increasing LED firing rate for any purpose at 42:50–54,
`25:66-26:14
`42:50–54 merely reports the results of test
`measurements to determine whether systole or
`diastole modulation would be more accurate for CCM:
`
`25:66-26:14 merely says “particular segments of a
`raspatory cycle may provide an increased SNR”
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`The “-916 FWD, 30 “capable of” analysis does not apply here
`• The “-916 FWD, 30”/ParkerVision analysis: (Reply, p. 11)
`
`-916 FWD, p. 30
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Ball, not ParkerVision, applies to the ‘299 “pulse rate” limitation
`“The claim language clearly specifies a particular configuration . . . . BASC's
`reliance on cases that found infringement by accused products that were
`reasonably capable of operating in an infringing manner is misplaced, since
`that line of cases is relevant only to claim language that specifies that the
`claim is drawn to capability.”
`Ball Aerosol & Spec. Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`• Like Ball, the ‘299 claims require a “system configured to increase the signal-to-noise
`ratio”
`
`“[O]ur cases distinguish between claims with language that recites capability,
`and those that recite configuration … . The language used in the claims is
`critical to deciding on which side of this line the claims fall. In Ball [], the
`claims recited a configuration . . . . We concluded that an accused candle that
`‘was reasonably capable of being put into the claimed configuration [was]
`insufficient for a finding of infringement.’”
`ParkerVision v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Flaws in Apple’s “external factor”/“regardless of the
`environment” argument
`1. The device cannot be divorced from the environment.
`
`2. Gaussian noise surrounds CCM firing rates.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`1. The device cannot be divorced from the environment
`• Apple argues
`
`Reply, p. 11
`contrary to its Petition argument that the environment determines device operation:
`
`Pet., pp. 43-44
`
`• Apple has never asserted—and has no evidence—that Lisogurski teaches altering CCM
`without “noise, motion, or ambient light,” as it now argues.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`2. Gaussian noise surrounds CCM firing rates
`
`• Apple argues:
`
`Reply, p. 11
`• “Gaussian noise of 0-5 Hz” envelops the CCM firing rate (0.5 – 3 Hz)
`(Ex. 1011, 41:46-52; Ex. 2131, ¶ 81)
`
`• No evidence that changing the CCM firing rate within the envelope of
`Gaussian noise would increase SNR.
`
`Ex.2131, ¶81
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`CCM’s “second mode”
`
`First mode
`
`Second mode
`
`Ex. 1011, 24:44-57
`
`Fig. 8B
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`LISOGURSKI + CARLSON
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Adding Carlson to Lisogurski merely duplicates DCM
`• Apple relies on Carlson’s teaching of “choosing” a pulse rate of
`1000 Hz or more.
`
`Pet. at 50
`• Lisogurski already improves SNR by using DCM to pulse at 1000
`Hz or more.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Lisogurski teaches CCM and DCM
`• Cardiac Cycle Modulation:
`• “[T]he brightness of one or more light sources may be modulated in a technique that is related to
`the cardiac cycle.” (5:13-15)
`• “As used herein, ‘cardiac cycle modulation’ will refer to the modulation techniques generally
`correlated to the cardiac cycle.” (5:25-27)
`• “Cardiac cycle modulation may have a period of, for example, around 1 second” (5:51-52)
`
`• Drive Cycle Modulation:
`• “As used herein, ‘drive cycle modulation’ (described below) will refer to a relatively higher
`frequency modulation technique that the system may use to generate one or more wavelengths of
`intensity signals.” (5:48-51)
`• “In a drive cycle modulation technique, the system may cycle light output at a rate significantly
`greater than the cardiac cycle.” (6:9-19)
`• “For example, time interval 260 (i.e., the period of the cardiac cycle modulation) may be on the order
`of 1 second, while time interval 272 (i.e., the period of the drive cycle modulation) may be on the
`order of 1 ms.” (16:42-46)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`CCM is an “envelope” “superimposed” on DCM
`
`“The cardiac cycle modulation
`may represent a lower
`frequency envelope function on
`the higher frequency drive
`cycle. For example, cardiac
`cycle modulation may be an
`envelope on the order of 1 Hz
`super-imposed on a 1 kHz sine
`wave drive cycle modulation.”
`Ex. 1011, 6:26-30
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 2c
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Combining Lisogurski & Carlson to modulate CCM >3 Hz
`changes Lisogurski’s operating principle
`• The purpose of CCM is to “modulate the light drive signal to have a ‘period the same
`as or closely related to the period of [a] cardiac cycle.’” (DI, p.24.)
`
`• Apple gives no reason to pulse the CCM LEDs at 1000Hz, which would lose the SNR
`benefits of CCM and duplicate DCM
`
`“[C]ombinations that change the ‘basic principles under which the [prior art]
`was designed to operate,’ In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 46 C.C.P.A. 976, 1959
`Dec. Comm'r Pat. 396 (CCPA 1959), . . . may fail to support a conclusion of
`obviousness.”
`Plas-Pak Indus. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 F. App'x 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Apple’s “operating principle” arguments are wrong
`
`• The two Lisogurski passages Apple cites do not support operating CCM
`at 1000 times the cardiac rate, as required for Apple’s argument to have
`merit
`
`• Apple first cites “7:38-40”
`• It merely says CCM may modulate “multiple light sources using a plurality of modulation
`techniques”
`
`• Apple next cites “7:4-12”
`• It merely says, “the system may combine cardiac cycle modulation techniques.”
`• A firing rate 1000 times the heart rate is not cardiac cycle modulation (it’s DCM)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Apple did not assert changing from continuous light to pulsed
`light is “increasing a pulse rate . . . from an initial pulse rate”
`• In the DI, the Board said, “We are not persuaded that switching the light source from
`no modulation (0 Hz) to modulation at a fixed frequency (f0 Hz) fails to teach or
`suggest increasing the pulse rate of the light source.” (DI, p. 51)
`
`• In the Petition, Apple did not assert continuously on light has pulses.
`
`• In the Reply, Apple did not assert continuously on light has pulses.
`
`• The Board may not create arguments for a Petitioner:
`
`“[W]e find no support for the PTO's position that the Board is free to adopt
`arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by
`the petitioner during an IPR”
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Changing from continuous light to pulsed light is not
`“increasing a pulse rate . . . from an initial pulse rate”
`• Choosing unmodulated light or pulsed light is not “increasing” a pulse rate from “an
`initial pulse rate” because no “pulse rate” exists for unmodulated light. (Ex. 2131, ¶¶27-
`28, 94-95)
`
`• Until an LED begins pulsing, no pulse rate exists. (Id.)
`
`• It is not possible to change the frequency of a non-existent pulse. (Id.)
`
`• Apple does not dispute these facts.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`The ‘299 patent distinguishes continuous wave light from
`pulsed light
`• The ‘299 patent makes clear that continuous wave is distinct from pulsed
`light. (Ex. 2131, ¶¶26-28.)
`• “[T]he LED provides the option of continuous wave or pulsed mode of operation.”
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:42-45.)
`• “In one embodiment, continuous-wave systems emit light at approximately
`constant intensity or modulated at low frequencies, such as 0.1-100 kHz.” (Ex. 2121,
`¶[0045] inc’d. by ref. at Ex. 1001 at 1:40-42.)
`
`• Apple does not dispute this.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`The ‘299 patent teaches that the lower end of the pulse rate is
`non-zero
`• “[A] pulse repetition rate between one kilohertz to about 100 MHz or
`more.” (Ex. 1001 at 24:33-34.)
`
`• “In one embodiment, continuous-wave systems emit light at
`approximately constant intensity or modulated at low frequencies, such
`as 0.1-100 kHz.” (Ex. 2121, ¶[0045] inc’d by ref. at Ex. 1001 at 1:40-42.)
`
`• Apple does not dispute this.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Carlson does not teach changing to different pulse rates
`• Apple argues (in Reply, but not the Petition) that Carlson “teach[es] switching among
`different pulse frequencies” (Reply p. 17)
`
`• But Carlson only teaches using a single “chosen” rate: (Ex. 2131, ¶92)
`• “The frequency is chosen in such a way that it is outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and of
`ambient light . . . .” (Ex. 1009 at [0069].)
`• “f0 is the chosen frequency of the emitted light” (Id.)
`• “f0 of course can be chosen at any other frequency, as e.g. 2000 Hz or even higher” (Id.)
`
`“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)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Carlson’s solution to SNR issues is temporary modulation
`• Carlson only temporarily modulates an unmodulated light source: (Ex.
`2131, ¶¶89-92.)
`• “temporarily modulate the amplitude of the optical radiation”;
`• “it is further proposed to temporarily modulate the amplitude of the optical
`radiation of the light source”
`• “[t]he basic idea of using AC-Coupling or Lock-In Amplification detection means is
`to temporarily modulate the optical radiation”
`• “it is furthermore possible to use a light source modulation to temporarily
`modulate the optical radiation of the LED”
`• “temporarily modulate the optical radiation of the LED at the carrier frequency fc in
`order to shift the power spectrum”
`(Ex. 1009 at [0020], [0027], [0064], [0065])
`• Apple’s attorneys argue to the contrary but cite no expert evidence. (Reply p. 16)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Changing a “power spectrum” is not “increasing a pulse rate . . .
`from an initial pulse rate”
`• Carlson’s Figure 7c shows the spectrum using
`continuously-on LEDs – there are no pulses, so no “initial
`pulse rate”:
`
`• Carlson’s Figure 8 shows a temporarily modulated LED at
`a “chosen” frequency f0:
`
`• No “increasing a pulse rate . . . from an initial pulse rate”
`because “without a starting pulse rate, there cannot be a
`pulse rate increase.” (Ex.2131(¶93).)
`
`Fig. 7c
`
`Fig. 8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Apple’s reliance on Carlson’s claims is improper and wrong
`
`• Apple’s attorneys argue that Carlson’s claims 10-13 support Apple. (Reply
`pp.16-17)
`
`• Improper because:
`• Untimely – not an argument Apple raised in the Petition
`• Unsupported – Apple has no evidence to support the attorney argument
`
`• Wrong because:
`• Claims 10-13 are means + function claims (as Apple admits, Reply, p.17)
`• Carlson’s only disclosed “means for shifting” is “synchronous detection,” which
`does not vary LED modulation frequency. (Ex.1009(¶¶[0020], [0027], [0065], [0069]))
`• Carlson never discloses shifting f0 from an initial pulse rate
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Apple’s reliance on “common sense” is improper and wrong
`• Apple’s attorneys argue “switching among different pulse frequencies” is
`“common sense” (Reply, p.17)
`
`• Improper because:
`• Untimely – not an argument Apple raised in the Petition
`• Unsupported – Apple has no evidence to support the attorney argument
`
`• Wrong because:
`• No reason to change pulse rates: Carlson says his “chosen” modulation frequency is
`“far outside” the noise spectrum and “[a]ny noise or sunlight … will not influence
`the measurement of the pulsoximetric sensor.” (Ex.1009(¶[0069]))
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Apple’s purported “undisputed” Lisogurski teachings are
`disputed and irrelevant (Reply p. 20)
`• Apple claims: Lisogurski’s device can “detect changes in the noise level.”
`• Vague and meaningless
`
`• Apple claims: Lisogurski teaches “vary[ing] cardiac cycle modulation … in response to
`changes in the noise level”
`• No – firing rate is not varied in response to changes in noise level
`
`• Apple claims: Lisogurski teaches “vary[ing] cardiac cycle modulation for the purpose
`of increasing SNR.”
`• No – varying CCM merely maintains the existing SNR
`
`• Apple claims: Lisogurski teaches “increase LED firing rate … in some circumstances.”
`• No – those “circumstances” do not include increasing SNR
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Apple’s “external trigger” argument is improper and wrong
`• Apple’s attorneys assert the “external trigger” influencing Lisogurski’s
`CCM may be “increased noise or ambient light.” (Reply p. 24)
`
`• Improper because:
`• Untimely – not an argument Apple raised in the Petition
`• Unsupported – Apple has no evidence to support the attorney argument
`
`• Wrong because:
`• Nowhere does Lisogurski disclose that the “external trigger” is driven by “noise or
`ambient light.”
`• Lisogurski teaches using only physiological sensors, not “noise” sensors: “[t]he
`trigger may include a signal received from an ECG sensor, an ECG sensor configured
`to detect an R-wave, a blood pressure sensor, a respiration rate sensor, any other
`suitable sensor, or any combination thereof.” (1:63-67, 10:3-22)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`MACFARLANE DECLARATION
`Lisogurski
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Continuous light difers from pulsed light
`
`Ex.2131, ¶26
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Changing from continuous wave to pulsed light is not
`“increasing a pulse rate”
`
`37
`
`Ex.2131, ¶27
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Lower end of pulsed light in ‘299 patent is non-zero
`
`Ex.2131, ¶28
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`CCM remains synchronous with the physiological pulses
`
`Ex.2131, ¶53
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`CCM remains synchronous (cont.)
`
`Ex.2131, ¶53
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Lisogurski’s separate DCM technique
`
`Ex.2131, ¶54
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`Lisogurski does not disclose varying firing rate to increase SNR
`
`Ex.2131, ¶68
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Lisogurski does not disclose increasing SNR by increasing the
`firing rate
`
`Ex.2131, ¶69
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Lisogurski does not adjust firing rate to increase SNR
`
`Ex.2131, ¶70-71
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`Sampling rate depends on firing rate, not vice versa
`
`Ex.2131, ¶72-73
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Lisogurski increases brightness & sampling rate, not firing rate
`
`Ex.2131, ¶74-75
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Cited Lisogurski passages do not support Apple’s argument
`
`Ex.2131, ¶76
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`The Board’s DI statements re: Lisogurski were correct
`
`Ex.2131, ¶76
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`CCM locks onto the cardiac cycle
`
`Ex.2131, ¶80
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`CCM does not increase SNR by increasing firing rate because
`firing rate adjustments do not avoid noise
`
`Ex.2131, ¶82
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Lisogurski uses DCM, not CCM to avoid noise
`
`Ex.2131, ¶83
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`DCM’s on/off subtraction is not the “pulse rate” limitaton
`
`Ex.2131, ¶84
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`Lisogurski’s teachings do not include the “pulse rate” limitation
`
`Ex.2131, ¶85
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`MACFARLANE DECLARATION
`Carlson
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`The “Carlson technique” – Fig. 7c
`
`Ex.2131, ¶86-88
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Carlson only modulates temporarily
`
`Ex.2131, ¶89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Carlson temporarily modulates continuous light at a “chosen”
`frequency
`
`Ex.2131, ¶90
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`Carlson Fig. 8
`
`Ex.2131, ¶92
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`Carlson shifts power spectrum, not pulse rate
`
`Ex.2131, ¶93
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`Dr. Anthony’s incorrect description of Carlson
`
`Ex.2131, ¶96
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`Reasons why Dr. Anthony is incorrect about Carlson
`
`Ex.2131, ¶97-98
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`Carlson never discloses increasing the LED pulse rate
`
`Ex.2131, ¶99
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`MACFARLANE DECLARATION
`Lisogurski + Carlson
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`Dr. Anthony is wrong about the Lisogurski/Carlson combination
`
`Ex.2131, ¶101
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`The combination does not disclose the “pulse rate” limitaiton
`
`Ex.2131, ¶102
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`Carlson adds nothing to Lisogurski
`
`Ex.2131, ¶103
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`Apple proposes changing Lisogurski’s principle of operation
`
`Ex.2131, ¶104
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`Apple proposes changing Lisogurski’s principle of operation
`
`Ex.2131, ¶104
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`An ordinary artisan would not consider Apple’s combination
`
`Ex.2131, ¶105
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`Dr. Anthony only offers one incorrect reason to support the
`Lisogurski/Carlson combination
`
`Ex.2131, ¶106
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`Carlson does not supply the pulse rate increase missing in
`Lisogurski
`
`Ex.2131, ¶108
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`Carlson does not supply the pulse rate increase missing in
`Lisogurski (cont.)
`
`Ex.2131, ¶110
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`Carlson does not supply the pulse rate increase missing in
`Lisogurski (cont.)
`
`Ex.2131, ¶111-12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`The Board’s DI Lisogurski + Carlson analysis was incorrect
`
`Ex.2131, ¶113
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`No record support for the Board’s DI combination
`
`Ex.2131, ¶114
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00175 Ex. 2132
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`Lisogurski + Carlson does not make the “pulse rate” limitation
`obvious
`
`Ex.2131, ¶115
`
`
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
