`
`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
`
`