`v.
`Masimo Corporation (Patent Owner)
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`Case No. IPR2020-01523
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703
`
`Before Hon. Josiah C. Cocks, Robert L. Kinder, Amanda F. Wieker
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1040
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01523
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Overview of the ’703 Patent
`
`Issue 1: “Processing Characteristics” Does Not Require Construction
`
`Issue 2: Obviousness Based on Diab-Amano Combination (Ground 1A) and
`Diab and GK-POSITA (Ground 2A)
`
`Issue 3: Obviousness Based on Amano (Ground 3A)
`
`Issue 4: Obviousness Based on Diab (Alone or With Amano) and Turcott
`(Grounds 1C and 2C) and Obviousness Based on Amano and Turcott (Ground
`3B)
`
`Issue 5: A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Diab based on
`Edgar’s Teachings (Grounds 1B and 2B) (Dependent claims 11 and 21)
`
`3
`
`6
`
`10
`
`34
`
`45
`
`68
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’703 Patent
`
`3
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`’703 Patent Overview
`
`Representative Independent Claims
`
`APPLE-1001, 11:32-51
`
`APPLE-1001, 12:5-23
`
`4
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`’703 Patent Overview
`
`Representative Dependent Claims
`
`APPLE-1001, 11:59-12:4
`
`APPLE-1001, 12:26-28
`
`5
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 1
`
`“Processing Characteristics”
`Does Not Require Construction
`
`6
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`“Processing Characteristics” Does Not Require
`Construction
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Petition, 51
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`PO Response, 23
`
`Pet. Reply, 1
`
`7
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Masimo’s Construction Is Unjustifiably Limiting
`
`’703 Patent Claims
`
`Claim 1 “comparing processing characteristics to a predetermined threshold”
`
`Claim 4 “said processing characteristics comprise signal characteristics from one or
`more light sensitive detectors.”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`APPLE-1001, 11:43-44, 11:59-61
`
`Pet. Reply, 1
`
`8
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Masimo’s Construction Is Unjustifiably Limiting
`
`’703 Patent
`
`APPLE-1001, 12:1-4
`
`APPLE-1001, 6:45-51 (cited at Pet. Reply, 2)
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 4 (as annotated at Pet. Reply, 3)
`
`9
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 2
`
`Obviousness Based on Diab-Amano
`Combination (Ground 1A) and
`Diab and GK-POSITA (Ground 2A)
`
`10
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 2A
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a
`Patient Monitor By Reducing an Amount of
`Processing
`
`11
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Diab’s Motion Artifact Suppression
`
`Diab
`
`APPLE-1007, 4:35-45 (cited at PO Sur-reply, 9)
`
`APPLE-1007, 9:16-27 (cited at Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`APPLE-1007, 33:45-50 (cited at Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`APPLE-1007, 33:19-23 (cited at Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`12
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Diab
`
`APPLE-1007, 47:55-56 (cited at Pet. 15)
`
`APPLE-1007, 47:52-54 (cited at Pet. 15)
`
`APPLE-1007, 48:6-9 (cited at Pet. 15)
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 20
`(as annotated at Pet. 16; APPLE-1003, ¶53)
`
`13
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 6
`
`14
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 6-7
`
`15
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 7-8
`
`16
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 34
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 20 (as annotated at POR, 34)
`
`17
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 5
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 20
`(as annotated at POR, 46)
`
`18
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Dr. Anthony
`
`Pet. Reply, 4
`
`EX-2003, 68:15-69:6 (cited at Pet. Reply, 5)
`
`19
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Adjusting Behavior of a Patient Monitor By
`Reducing an Amount of Processing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Diab
`
`Pet. Reply, 4
`
`APPLE-1007, 9:16-27 (cited at Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`20
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 2B
`
`Suspending Diab’s Motion Artifact Suppression
`Reduces Amount of Processing
`
`21
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Suspending Diab’s Motion Artifact Suppression Reduces
`Amount of Processing
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶53
`(as cited at Pet. 16)
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 20
`(as annotated at Pet. 16; APPLE-1003, ¶53)
`
`22
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Suspending Diab’s Motion Artifact Suppression Reduces
`Amount of Processing
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 21
`(as annotated at Pet. 17; APPLE-1003, ¶54)
`
`23
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 2C
`
`A POSITA Would Have Found It Obvious From
`Amano’s Teachings That Diab Reduces Power
`Consumption When Motion is Absent
`
`24
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Amano’s Teachings
`
`Amano
`
`APPLE-1004, 21:50-22:6
`(cited at Pet. 9)
`
`25
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Amano’s Teachings Applied to Diab
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶43 (cited at Pet. 9)
`
`26
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Found It Obvious To Suspend Diab’s Motion Artifact
`Suppression If No Motion Is Detected Based On Amano’s Teachings
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶54 (cited at Pet. 16)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶55 (cited at Pet. 18)
`
`27
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Found It Obvious To Suspend Diab’s Motion Artifact
`Suppression If No Motion Is Detected Based On Amano’s Teachings
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 41
`
`28
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Found It Obvious To Suspend Diab’s Motion Artifact
`Suppression If No Motion Is Detected Based On Amano’s Teachings
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
`(cited at Pet. Reply, 8)
`
`29
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 2D
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Comparing Processing
`Characteristics to a Predetermined Threshold
`
`30
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Comparing Processing Characteristics to
`a Predetermined Threshold
`
`Diab
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1007, 47:50-54 (cited by Pet. 19)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶57 (cited at Pet. 20)
`
`31
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Comparing Processing Characteristics to
`a Predetermined Threshold
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response 50-51
`
`32
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab Renders Obvious Comparing Processing Characteristics to
`a Predetermined Threshold
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 14-15
`
`33
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 3
`
`Obviousness Based on Amano (Ground 3A)
`
`34
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Amano
`
`Amano
`
`APPLE-1004, 21:3-8 (cited at Pet. 49)
`
`APPLE-1004, 21:50-22:6 (cited at Pet. 49-50)
`
`APPLE-1004, FIG. 1
`(cited at Pet. 52; APPLE-1003, ¶105)
`35
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 3A
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining
`Measurement Values for a Physiological
`Parameter of a Patient
`
`36
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining Measurement Values for a
`Physiological Parameter of a Patient
`
`’703 Patent Claim 1
`
`APPLE-1001, 11:40-42
`
`Amano
`
`APPLE-1004, 36:26-27 (cited at Pet. 54)
`
`APPLE-1004, 22:1-7 (cited at Pet. 54)
`
`APPLE-1004, FIG. 1
`(as annotated at Pet. 55; APPLE-1003, ¶105)
`
`37
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining Measurement Values for a
`Physiological Parameter of a Patient
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶105 (cited at Pet. 55)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 23
`
`38
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining Measurement Values for a
`Physiological Parameter of a Patient
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 72
`
`39
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining Measurement Values for a
`Physiological Parameter of a Patient
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 24
`
`40
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Determining Measurement Values for a
`Physiological Parameter of a Patient
`
`Amano
`
`APPLE-1004, 22:7-66
`(cited at Pet. Reply, 24)
`
`APPLE-1004, FIG. 1
`(as annotated at Pet. 55; APPLE-1003, ¶105)
`
`41
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 3B
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Comparing
`Processing Characteristics to a Predetermined
`Threshold
`
`42
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Comparing Processing Characteristics to a
`Predetermined Threshold
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 74-75
`
`43
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Amano Renders Obvious Comparing Processing Characteristics to a
`Predetermined Threshold
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶98 (cited at Pet. 51)
`
`44
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 4
`
`Obviousness Based on Diab (Alone or With Amano)
`and Turcott (Grounds 1C and 2C)
`Obviousness Based on Amano and Turcott
`(Ground 3B)
`
`45
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Turcott
`
`Turcott
`
`APPLE-1006, 11:15-19 (cited at Pet. 37)
`
`APPLE-1006, 11:51-61 (cited at Pet. 37)
`
`46
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Combination of Diab (Alone or With Amano) and
`Turcott
`
`Diab
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1007, 35:50-53 (cited at Pet. 41)
`
`APPLE-1007, 36:2-6 (cited at Pet. 41)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶85 (cited at Pet. 42)
`
`Turcott
`
`APPLE-1006, 11:51-61 (cited at Pet. 42)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶81 (cited at Pet. 39)
`
`47
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Combination of Amano and Turcott
`
`Amano
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1004, 22:4-6 (cited at Pet. 64)
`
`Turcott
`
`APPLE-1006, 11:51-61 (cited at Pet. 64, 66)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶123 (cited at Pet. 67)
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶119 (cited at Pet. 65)
`
`48
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Diab
`based on Turcott’s Teachings
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 19
`
`49
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 4A
`
`The Diab, Amano, and Turcott Combinations
`Render Obvious Reducing Activation of an
`Attached Sensor
`
`50
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Diab, Amano, and Turcott Combinations Render Obvious Reducing
`Activation of an Attached Sensor
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 60
`
`PO Response, 61
`
`51
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Diab, Amano, and Turcott Combinations Render Obvious Reducing
`Activation of an Attached Sensor
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 17-18
`
`52
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab, Amano, and Turcott Render Obvious Reducing Activation of an
`Attached Sensor
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 18
`
`53
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab, Amano, and Turcott Render Obvious Reducing Activation of an
`Attached Sensor
`
`Bradium Technologies v. Iancu, 923 F. 3d 1032, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(cited at Pet. Reply, 16)
`
`Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807–08 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
`(cited at Pet. Reply, 17)
`
`54
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab, Amano, and Turcott Are Directed To Non-invasive Sensors
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 64
`
`55
`
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Diab, Amano, and Turcott Are Directed To Non-invasive Sensors
`
`Turcott
`
`APPLE-1006, 11:66-12:15 (cited at Pet. Reply, 21)
`
`56
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 4B
`
`The Combination of Diab (Alone or With
`Amano) and Turcott
`
`57
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Combination of Diab (Alone or With Amano) and
`Turcott
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 62-63
`
`58
`
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Combination of Diab (Alone or With Amano) and Turcott
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 20-21
`
`59
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Combination of Diab (Alone or With Amano) and Turcott
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 65
`
`PO Response, 65-66
`
`60
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Combination of Diab (Alone or With Amano) and Turcott
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 22
`
`61
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Diab
`based on Turcott’s Teachings
`
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cited at Pet. Reply, 22)
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 22
`
`62
`
`62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 4C
`
`The Combination of Amano and Turcott
`
`63
`
`63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Combination of Amano and Turcott
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 76
`
`64
`
`64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Amano
`based on Turcott’s Teachings
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 27
`
`65
`
`65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Amano
`based on Turcott’s Teachings
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 76
`
`PO Response, 77
`
`66
`
`66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Amano
`based on Turcott’s Teachings
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 27
`
`67
`
`67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issue 5
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to
`Modify Diab based on Edgar’s Teachings
`(Grounds 1B and 2B)
`(Dependent claims 11 and 21)
`
`68
`
`68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Combination of Diab and Edgar
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶69 (cited by Pet. 30)
`
`69
`
`69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Diab
`based on Edgar’s Teachings
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO Response, 55-56
`
`70
`
`70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Diab
`based on Edgar’s Teachings
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. Reply, 15-16
`
`71
`
`71
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Appendix
`
`72
`
`72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Instituted Grounds
`
`Petition, 3; see Institution Decision (Paper 7), 8, 30
`
`73
`
`73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`