9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`APPLE INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` v. ) Case Nos.
`MASIMO CORPORATION, ) IPR 2020-01526
` ) US Patent 6,771,994
` )
` )
` Patent Owner.)
`_________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
` APPEARING REMOTELY
`
` September 8, 2021
` 11:07 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time
`
`Reported by: Lori J. Goodin, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` RSA, California CSR #13959
`______________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`APPLE 1038
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01526
`
`1
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`APPLE INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` v. ) Case Nos.
`MASIMO CORPORATION, ) IPR 2020-01526
` ) US Patent 6,771,994
` )
` )
` Patent Owner.)
`_________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
` APPEARING REMOTELY
`
` September 8, 2021
` 11:07 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time
`
`Reported by: Lori J. Goodin, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` RSA, California CSR #13959
`______________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`APPLE 1038
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01526
`
`1
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 2
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
` FOR APPLE:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` DANIEL D. SMITH, ESQUIRE
` 1425 K Street, Northwest
` 11th Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` 202-783-5070
` dsmith@fr.com
`
` FOR MASIMO:
` KNOBBE MARTENS
` BEN KATZENELLENBOGEN, ESQUIRE
` JOHN GROVER, ESQUIRE
` SHANNON LAM, ESQUIRE
` 2040 Main Street
` Irvine, California 92614
` 949-721-5301
` ben.katzenellenbogen@knobbe.com
` john.grover@knobbe.com
` shannon.lam@knobbe.com
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Billy Fahnert, video/document technician
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`WITNESS: VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`BY MR. SMITH 5
` * * *
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
` VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
` APPLE V. MASIMO
` Wednesday, September 8, 2021
` Lori J. Goodin, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` RSA, California CSR #13959
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of V. Madisetti 10
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 5,638,818 (Diab) 11
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent 4,015,595 (Benjamin) 12
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent 5,254,388 (Melby) 12
`Exhibit 1009 PCT application (Fine) 13
`Exhibit 1010 Webster's Design of Pulse 13
` Oximeters
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,771,994 38
`
` (All exhibits were provided
` electronically to the reporter.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
` WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021, 11:06 A.M.
` PROCEEDINGS
`
`Page 4
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
` record. This is the remote video deposition
` of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, regarding
` IPR 2020-01526, In the Matter of Apple, Inc.
` versus Masimo Corporation, in the United
` States Patent and Trademark Office before the
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
` My name is Billy Fahnert. I am the
` video technician today. The court reporter
` is Lori Goodin. We are here on behalf of
` Digital Evidence Group.
` Today's date is September 8, 2021.
` The time is 11:07 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
` All parties have stipulated to the
` witness being sworn in remotely. Will
` counsel please identify yourselves for the
` record and then the witness will be sworn in.
` MR. SMITH: Dan Smith for petitioner
` Apple.
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`4
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Ben
` Katzenellenbogen for Masimo.
` I believe there are a couple of
` other attorneys from Knobbe Martens as well
` who are on the video, but I don't anticipate
` will be making any formal appearances or say
` anything on the record. John Grover and
` Shannon Lam.
` * * *
`Whereupon,
` VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.,
`a witness called for examination, having been
`first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` * * *
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
` You may proceed.
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Madisetti.
` A. Good morning, sir.
` Q. How are you doing this morning?
` A. Good. How are you?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`5
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 6
` Q. Doing well. Doing well. Would you
`please state your full name for the record.
` A. It is Vijay K. Madisetti.
` Q. Okay. And you are aware that you
`are being deposed in the inter partes review
`Proceeding Number IPR 2020-01526. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. I don't recall the exact number,
`but, quite a bit.
` Q. And during this deposition you
`understand that I'm going to be asking you
`questions and you are going to be answering them
`under oath, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand that willful false
`statements made during this deposition are
`punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`6
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. And the court reporter will be
`attempting to transcribe everything we say, so,
`it is important that we wait for each other to
`finish asking or answering a question before the
`other begins talking.
` Do you understand this?
` A. I do.
` Q. And you understand that every answer
`needs to be verbal, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is there any reason such as
`being under unusual stress, a physical or mental
`condition or being under the influence of any
`substance that would prevent you or limit you
`today from giving truthful answers to my
`questions?
` A. There is not.
` Q. Okay. And, during today's remote
`deposition, we will be discussing various
`exhibits from the case record.
` When we begin discussing a
`particular exhibit, I will have the exhibit
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`7
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`placed in the shared directory for you to
`download. If you would like to refer to any
`exhibit that I have not yet provided, please ask
`and we will provide it in the same manner.
` Does that work?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. Please refer only to exhibits and
`not to any personal copies you may have on your
`computer. Is that fair?
` A. Sounds good.
` Q. Okay. And, just from that, you are
`using your computer to access the video
`deposition today, correct?
` A. That's right.
` Q. And, do you have any messaging
`programs running that would enable you to
`communicate with others during the course of the
`deposition such an e-mail or an instant messaging
`client?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. And what did you do to
`prepare for this deposition?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`8
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 9
` A. I reviewed my declaration and some
`of the exhibits.
` Q. Which exhibits did you review?
` A. I reviewed the patent and I believe
`a couple of exhibits Webster and Diab, and Fine.
` Q. Okay. And about how long did you
`spend preparing for the deposition?
` A. A few hours.
` Q. And other than counsel, did you
`speak to anyone else to prepare for this
`deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. And, we have been in
`deposition before. But, I will, as I have done
`before, I will try to take a break every hour.
`If you need a break, just say so and we can take
`a break whenever you would like.
` I just ask that if there is a
`question pending, let's go ahead and answer that
`question before taking a break.
` Is that fair?
` A. Sounds good.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`9
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 10
` Q. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and
`provide, provide you with those, with the
`exhibits that I'm planning on referencing up
`front, just so we can get a short name for each
`of them on the record so we can easily refer to
`them. Does that sound good?
` A. Sounds good.
` Q. Okay. And Billy, did you, are those
`up there on the share for him to download?
` A. Yes, they are.
` Q. Okay. And Dr. Madisetti, if you
`would go to the shared exhibit link, there should
`be six exhibits there for you to download. Let
`me know when you do that?
` A. I see six exhibits there. Should I
`download them all?
` Q. Yes, please.
` A. Yes, counsel, I have downloaded all
`of them.
` (Madisetti Exhibit 2001
` marked for identification.)
` Q. Okay. Could you open Exhibit 2001?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`10
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. And, what is that document?
` A. It is the declaration of Vijay
`Madisetti, it is my declaration from July 20th,
`2021.
` Q. Okay. And, for the remainder of the
`proceeding would it be okay to refer to that as
`your declaration?
` A. Yes.
` (Madisetti Exhibit 1006
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Okay. Could you open Exhibit 1006,
`please?
` A. Okay, I have opened Exhibit 1006.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes, it is the U.S. Patent 5,638,818.
` Q. And, for the purposes of the
`proceeding can we refer to this as Diab?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you would, could you open
`Exhibit 1007, please.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`11
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` (Madisetti Exhibit 1007
` marked for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay. I have opened
` Exhibit 1007.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Okay. And do you recognize this
`document?
` A. Yes. It is U.S. Patent 4,015,595.
` Q. Okay. And for the purposes of the
`proceeding, would it be okay to refer to this as
`Benjamin?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Would you open Exhibit 1008,
`please.
` (Madisetti Exhibit 1008
` marked for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I have opened
` Exhibit 1008.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Okay. And do you recognize this
`document?
` A. Yes. It is U.S. Patent 5,254,388.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`12
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. And for the purposes of this
`deposition can we refer to that as Melby?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you open Exhibit 1009.
` (Madisetti Exhibit 1009
` marked for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I have opened
` Exhibit 1009.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. And do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes, it is a PCT application patent.
` Q. And for the purposes of this
`deposition, can we refer to this as Fine?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And last one. Could you open
`Exhibit 1010, please.
` (Madisetti Exhibit 1010
` marked for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I have opened
` Exhibit 1010.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. And do you recognize this document?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`13
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 14
` A. Yes. It is the Webster reference.
` Q. Okay. And for the purposes of this
`deposition, can we refer to this as Webster?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Okay. Let's go back to your
`declaration.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And I want to look at Paragraph 75
`to start with.
` Let me know when you are there.
` A. I'm going to that.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Okay. I am on Paragraph 75 of my
`declaration on Page 41 of the document.
` Q. So, you see in Paragraph 75 where it
`says, "I have been informed that there is no
`suggestion or motivation to make the proposed
`modification if a proposed modification would
`render the prior art invention being modified
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`14
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. And the next sentence, "As I
`mentioned above, the intended purpose of Diab's
`invention was to scatter optical radiation to
`improve optical signal quality."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. So, it is your opinion that Diab's
`intended purpose is to scatter optical radiation
`to improve optical signal quality; is that
`correct?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` lacks foundation.
` THE WITNESS: The sentence is made
` reference in my discussion on Diab which
` precedes these paragraphs.
` This sentence was made in the
` context that was raised by the petitioner for
` the purposes of this IPR.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. So, your opinion, what is Diab's
`intended purpose?
` A. As I described in my declaration for
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`15
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`the purposes of this IPR, and as described in
`Dr. Anthony's and petitioner's reports and briefs
`and papers, the intended purpose of Diab's
`invention was to scatter optical radiation to
`improve optical signal quality in the context of
`the section that is referred to in Paragraph 75.
` Q. Is that all Diab's invention does,
`is scatter optical radiation?
` A. I address Diab as a whole to the
`extent relevant embodiments were raised by the
`petitioner.
` For example, I discuss embodiments
`of Diab to the extent they were raised by
`Dr. Anthony.
` For example, in Paragraph 79 I
`referred to one embodiment that has been marked
`by the petitioner and Dr. Anthony. So I respond
`to these embodiments as discussed in my
`declaration.
` Q. Does Diab describe that its
`invention measures any physiological parameters?
` A. I'm not clear as to what you mean by
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`16
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`mention.
` Q. Did I say mention? Does Diab
`describe that its invention measures any
`physiological parameters.
` A. I would have to, I'm looking at
`Diab, and my understanding of Diab in the context
`of this IPR is discussed in my declaration. And
`in response to your question as to measure
`whether it measures physical, physiological
`parameters, that is a very, very high level, and
`the purpose of Diab is very focused as discussed
`in my declaration.
` Q. Very focused on scattering optical
`radiation; is that correct?
` A. Again, as I described in my answer
`to my previous question, I address all
`embodiments that were raised by the petitioner
`and Dr. Anthony whether they involved scattering
`or not.
` But, to the extent Dr. Anthony and
`the petitioner discuss the embodiment with
`respect to scattering, it is my opinion that the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`17
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`intended purpose is to use scattering for
`improving optical signal quality.
` Q. And Diab describes a scattering
`medium that performs that scattering; is that
`correct?
` A. Could you refer me to a particular
`portion of Diab you are referring to.
` Q. Are you familiar with the scattering
`medium that Diab describes?
` A. I discuss the, you know, at
`different portions of my declaration and refer
`to different portions of Diab in my analysis.
` So I am familiar with different
`aspects. I was asking if you had a very specific
`question that involved a particular portion or a
`particular discussion or analysis that are
`presented with respect to scattering of Diab in
`my report.
` Q. Do you describe the operation of the
`scattering medium in your report?
` A. Yes, I describe it in several
`places. For example, in the Paragraph 72 is one
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`18
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 19
`exemplary discussion. There are other portions
`in my declaration that refer to that top.
` Q. Do you see in Paragraph 72, the end
`of Paragraph 72 where you say, "As shown below,
`Diab discloses a Probe 1000, in which optical
`radiation is received by the Photodetector 1026,
`after passing through the scattering medium
`1040."
` Do you see that?
` A. Counsel, are you referring to the
`same paragraph? I was referring to Paragraph 72
`in my declaration.
` Q. Yes. That should be the last, or,
`I'm sorry, I am mixing up the paragraph numbers.
`It is the last sentence before the, before
`Figure 25 there on Page 39?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Sorry, are
` you at Paragraph 72 of his declaration.
` MR. SMITH: Yes.
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Thanks. I
` appreciate it.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I am on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`19
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 20
` Paragraph 72 of my declaration which starts
` on Page 38 and we are going to Page 39. And
` the top of Page 39 there is the sentence that
` starts with "As shown below."
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Yes.
` A. Is that the sentence that you are
`referring to counsel?
` Q. Yes, that's correct.
` A. Yes, I do see that sentence. I
`refer to Column 19, Lines 64 through 66 in Diab
`for that portion and also to Figure 25.
` Q. So, in Diab, the optical radiation
`that is received by the Photodetector 1026, what,
`is there a measurement that is performed based on
`that optical radiation?
` A. It measures optical signals.
` Q. Just any optical signal? Or is it,
`is it a specific type of optical signal?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` compound.
` THE WITNESS: As I described here,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`20
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 21
` it is an optical signal. It depends on the
` Emitter 10, Emitter 1030 and this optical
` radiation is received by the Photodetector
` 1026 after passing through the Scattering
` Medium 1040.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Is the optical radiation reflected
`off a tissue site before being received by the
`Photodetector 1026?
` A. Yes, it can.
` Q. And it can also be attenuated by a
`tissue site; is that correct?
` A. At the high level, yes. And again
`I'm not specifically sure as to which portion of
`Paragraph 72 you are referring to and tying it to
`Diab itself, and what disclosures Diab discloses
`here with respect to motion, patient movement and
`scattering.
` Q. Could you look at Diab real quick?
` A. In Diab it sort of discloses that
`the scattering medium is clear through optical
`absorption, but still scatters light, Column 19,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`21
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Lines 59 through 60.
` Now, what was your question,
`counsel.
` Q. Take a look at Column 1 of Diab.
`Starting at Line 23.
` A. Column 1 of Diab.
` Q. Let me know when you are there.
` A. Yes, I am at Column 1. Line number?
` Q. 23.
` A. 23.
` Q. So, do you see the paragraph that
`begins, "Noninvasive physiological monitoring of
`bodily function is often required. For example,
`during surgery, blood pressure and the body's
`available supply of oxygen or the blood oxygen
`saturation are all submonitored -- excuse me, are
`often monitored."
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that disclosure in Diab in
`Lines 23 to 25.
` Q. So, does the device described in
`Diab take these types of measurements?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`22
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 23
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` vague.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Does the -- let me rephrase.
` Does the device described in Diab
`monitor the bodily functions described in this
`paragraph in Column 1?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Same
` objection.
` THE WITNESS: I would say that it
` describes certain related art, and I believe
` that, as I described earlier, the intended
` purpose is disclosed. As I describe in my
` declaration, these are broad level
` characterizations of related art.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Could the device described in Diab
`be used to measure blood oxygen saturation?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` incomplete hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: Are you referring to a
` portion of Diab that you would like me to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`23
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` look at?
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Do you understand that there is a
`device described in Diab?
` A. At the high level, yes.
` Q. And could that device be used for
`measuring blood oxygen saturation?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Same
` objection.
` THE WITNESS: Diab discloses what it
` discloses. So, I'm not sure as to what you
` are asking me to say, counsel.
` As I said, it discusses a variety of
` patents in the related art section, but it
` specifically focuses on certain type of
` issues that include, at least for the
` purposes of this IPR, based on the ground and
` basis that Dr. Anthony has raised.
` Their intended purpose is to improve
` optical signal quality through the use of
` scattering though I have addressed other
` embodiments raised as well.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`24
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. So, if you removed the scattering
`medium from over the photodetector in Diab's
`device, is it your opinion that Diab, Diab's
`device would be unsuitable for its intended
`purpose?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` incomplete hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: I address all
` embodiments that were raised by Dr. Anthony
` including Figure 24 which I understand does
` not disclose a scattering medium.
` So, my, my declaration discusses
` Figure 24. It discusses other figures as
` well that include a scattering medium and
` those that do not include a scattering
` medium.
` In all cases it is an opinion that a
` POSA would not combine Diab with other art
` for the reasons that I discuss in my
` declaration.
`BY MR. SMITH:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`25
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 26
` Q. So, you said you discuss embodiments
`that do not include a scattering medium; is that
`correct?
` A. For example, in my declaration I do
`refer to Figure 24. I also refer to Figure 25
`and others. But my understanding is that the
`petitioner and Dr. Anthony specifically utilize
`scattering embodiments as the motivation for
`their combination.
` Q. So, in Paragraph 73 you state that
`"Reading Diab, a POSITA would understand that the
`intended purpose of Diab's invention was to
`scatter optical radiation to improve optical
`signal quality."
` Do you see that?
` A. I think I answered that before. I
`address all of the embodiments of Diab to the
`address, to the extent that they were raised by
`the petitioner and Dr. Anthony in Paragraph 73.
`I discussed the embodiment of Diab that
`understand that Dr. Anthony and the petitioner
`have provided as the basis for the motivation to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`26
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`combine.
` And in that context, I make it clear
`that a POSITA reading Diab, in that context of
`the petitioner and Dr. Anthony, in that context
`would understand that a POSITA would understand
`the intended purpose of Diab's invention was to
`scatter optical radiation to improve optical
`signal quality.
` Q. Does Diab describe any embodiments
`lacking the scattering medium over the
`photodetector?
` A. Diab has many disclosures and I was
`focusing on the grounds and the basis raised by
`the petitioner and Dr. Anthony.
` And I address all of those grounds
`whether they do or they do not include scattering.
` Q. So, for embodiments that don't
`include scattering, is it safe to say the
`intended purpose of Diab's invention was not to
`scatter optical radiation to improve signal
`quality?
` A. As I said, I have responded in my
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`27
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`declaration to Dr. Anthony's motivations to
`combine, and I have described the basis of my
`opinions in my declaration.
` My understanding is that both Apple
`and Dr. Anthony specifically described the use of
`the scattering embodiment as the basis for the
`motivation to combine.
` And that is what I addressed in this
`portion of my declaration, referring to
`Paragraph 72 and 73.
` In other portions I address any
`other figures or embodiments that were raised by
`Apple or Dr. Anthony. And also provide an
`opinion and its basis as to the lack of
`motivation to combine or lack of expectation of
`success and so on.
` Q. So, you agree that there are
`embodiments in Diab that don't include the
`scattering medium over the photodetector,
`correct?
` A. As I said, Diab speaks for itself.
`And to the extent that there are embodiments in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`28
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 29
`Diab that do not include a scattering medium, I
`have addressed those embodiments as well to the
`extent that they were raised by Apple and
`Dr. Anthony.
` Q. The intended purpose of those
`embodiments in Diab that do not include the
`scattering medium is not to scatter optical
`radiation to improve optical signal quality.
`Correct?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection,
` vague. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: I have not offered
` such an opinion in my declaration. I have
` responded to Apple's and Dr. Anthony, Apple's
` expert's opinions as to the basis of the
` combination, which I understand, Dr. Anthony
` has relied upon the scattering embodiment for
` his alleged motivation to combine, to the
` extent that he has, there are, there is a
` discussion of other figures such as
` Figure 24. I have addressed those issues as
` well in my declaration along with support.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`29
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Just to be clear in Paragraph 73,
`your testimony refers to the intended purpose of
`Diab's invention correct?
` A. Paragraph 73 speaks for itself,
`counsel. I have responded to that question
`before.
` I was referring specifically in the
`context of Paragraph 73 to Dr. Anthony's basis
`for his combination which relies on the
`scattering embodiment.
` And in that paragraph I respond that
`in the context of petitioners and Dr. Anthony's
`basis, and motivation for their alleged
`combination. And I offer an opinion that in that
`context, of Dr. Anthony's motivation, that the
`purpose of Diab as described in the
`Paragraphs 72, 73, and onwards, that one would
`understand in this context of Dr. Anthony's
`opinions as to the motivation, using scattering,
`that the intended purpose of Diab's invention was
`to scatter optical radiation to improve optical
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2021
`
`202-232-0646
`
`30
`
`
`
`9/8/2021
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`signal quality.
` Q. So you didn't consider Diab's
`disclosure as a whole then, correct?
` MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes the witness' testimony.
` THE WITNESS: I disagree. I
` reviewed entire Diab; I would have reviewed
` and responded to whatever was raised by the
` petitioner and Dr. Anthony.
` I referred to Figures 24, I referred
` to other sections, and I am responding based
` on my evaluation of Dr. Anthony's opinions
` and their alleged basis as well as my review.
`BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Could you go to Column 4 in Diab.
` A. I should go to Column 4?
` Q. Yes, could you please go to
`Column 4.
` A. Okay, so I am on Column 4 of Diab
`which is Exhibit 6, 1006.
` Q. Yes. Column 4, Line 6?
` A. Okay. I am on Column 4, Line 6 of
`
`www.Di
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
