throbber
Filed: June 11, 2021
`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Jacob L. Peterson (Reg. No. 65,096)
`William R. Zimmerman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: AppleIPR2020-1539-554@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01539
`U.S. Patent 10,588,554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MASIMO’S PIONEERING TECHNOLOGY ......................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’554 Patent Claims .................................................................. 5
`
`Introduction To Independent Claims ............................................. 6
`
`The ’554 Patent Prosecution .......................................................... 8
`
`III. THE PETITION’S PROPOSED COMBINATIONS ............................... 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 9
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................ 10
`
`VII. GROUND 1 FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS .............. 11
`
`A. Ground 1’s Cited Art And Asserted Combination ....................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Combination Of Ohsaki And Aizawa ............ 12
`
`Dr. Kenny’s Erroneous Characterization Of Ohsaki ......... 16
`
`Petitioner’s Addition Of Inokawa To The
`Combination of Ohsaki and Aizawa .................................. 18
`
`Petitioner’s Addition Of Mendelson 2006 To The
`Combination Of Ohsaki, Aizawa, And Inokawa ............... 19
`
`B. A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated To Combine
`Ohsaki’s Board With Aizawa’s Sensor ........................................ 20
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That Ohsaki’s
`Rectangular Board Is Incompatible With Aizawa’s
`Radially Symmetric Sensor Arrangement ......................... 21
`
`a) Modifying Ohsaki’s Rectangular Board Would
`Eliminate Ohsaki’s Already Limited
`Advantages .............................................................. 21
`
`b)
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Add A Rectangular Board To Aizawa’s
`Circular Sensor ........................................................ 27
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That Ohsaki’s
`Board “Has A Tendency To Slip” At Aizawa’s
`Required Measurement Location On The Palm Side
`Of The Wrist, Near The Artery .......................................... 30
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Aizawa’s Flat Acrylic Plate Improves
`Adhesion On The Palm Side Of The Wrist ............. 30
`
`Ohsaki’s Convex Board Has “A Tendency To
`Slip” When Positioned On The Palm Side Of
`The Wrist ................................................................. 36
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Eliminate The Benefits Of Aizawa’s Flat
`Adhesive Acrylic Plate By Including A
`Lens/Protrusion Similar To Ohsaki’s Board ........... 39
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated To Add
`A Convex Lens/Protrusion To Aizawa’s Sensor
`Because It Would Have Been Expected To Reduce
`The Optical Signal ............................................................. 42
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That A
`Convex Cover Directs Light To The Center Of
`The Sensor ............................................................... 43
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Direct Light Away From Aizawa’s
`Detectors .................................................................. 45
`
`4.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Selected A Convex
`Cover To Protect The Optical Elements ............................ 50
`
`Petitioner Identifies No Valid Motivation To Add A Second
`Emitter .......................................................................................... 51
`
`Petitioner’s Motivation To Add Mendelson 2006
`Undermines Its Motivation to Add A Second Emitter ................. 58
`
`The Petition Provides No Evidence Of An Expectation Of
`Success ......................................................................................... 62
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Challenged Dependent Claims Are Nonobvious .................. 63
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Dependent Claims are Nonobvious
`For The Same Reasons As Claims 1 and 20 ...................... 63
`
`Claim 28 Is Nonobvious For Additional Reasons ............. 64
`
`VIII. GROUND 2 FAILS FOR THE SAME REASONS AS
`GROUND 1 ............................................................................................ 67
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 11 Is Nonobvious For Additional Reasons ....................... 67
`
`Claim 13 Is Nonobvious For Additional Reasons ....................... 68
`
`Claim 17 Is Nonobvious For Additional Reasons ....................... 69
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`IX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ............................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 10
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 10
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 42
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................... 63
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 11
`
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 10
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 11
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 9
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 11
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 63
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 549 (2020) ................................................................................... 69
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ................................................................................................ 71
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................ 70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .............................................................................................. 70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .............................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Declaration of Jeremiah S. Helm in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Motion
`
`Declaration of William R. Zimmerman in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Motion
`
`Reserved
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539
`(April 22, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539
`(April 23, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01536, IPR2020-01538 (April 24, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01536, IPR2020-01538 (April 25, 2021)
`
`Frank H. Netter, M.D., Section VI Upper Limb, Atlas of Human
`Anatomy (2003), Third Edition (“Netter”)
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit List, Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2020-01520
`
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01520
`
`2021
`
`Reserved
`
`2022
`
`“Skin Reflectance Pulse Oximetry: In Vivo Measurements from
`the Forearm and Calf,” Y. Mendelson, et al.; Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1991 (“Mendelson 1991”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit List, Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combinations all suffer from the same underlying
`
`flaws. Petitioner’s four reference combination relies primarily on Aizawa and
`
`Ohsaki, but Petitioner ignores critical differences between these references that
`
`make them incompatible.
`
`First, Ohsaki discloses a sensor with a convex board that must be used on the
`
`back side (i.e., watch side) of the wrist to provide its asserted benefit of improved
`
`adhesion, taking advantage of the user’s bone structure. In contrast, Aizawa
`
`expressly states that its sensor is used on the palm side of the wrist, where it is
`
`positioned over the user’s artery. Petitioner argues a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine Ohsaki’s convex board with Aizawa’s sensor “so as to
`
`improve adhesion between the user’s wrist and the sensor’s surface.” Pet. 36-37.
`
`But Ohsaki discloses its board “has a tendency to slip off” the palm side of the
`
`wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶[0023]. Accordingly, a POSITA seeking to improve Aizawa’s
`
`palm-side sensor would not have been motivated to add Ohsaki’s convex board,
`
`designed for the back side of the wrist. Rather, a POSITA would have
`
`affirmatively avoided making that change.
`
`Second, Ohsaki’s sensor uses a longitudinal structure in a specific
`
`orientation between bones on the back side of the wrist to reduce sensor slippage
`
`and motion. Aizawa, however, discloses a circular sensor which provides more
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`consistent measurements when measuring signals from the arteries on the palm
`
`side of the wrist. Transforming Ohaski’s longitudinal structure into a circular
`
`shape to fit Aizawa’s sensor would eliminate Ohsaki’s benefit of reduced slippage
`
`and movement. Conversely, changing Aizawa’s circular sensor to accommodate
`
`Ohsaki’s longitudinal structure would result in less consistent measurements. The
`
`combination of Aizawa and Ohsaki would either disrupt Aizawa’s circular
`
`symmetry, Ohsaki’s longitudinal structure, or both. Petitioner attempts to combine
`
`references that are simply incompatible.
`
`Third, Petitioner’s combination detrimentally places a convex-shaped cover
`
`over Aizawa’s peripherally located detectors. A POSITA would have believed
`
`that such a cover would undesirably direct light away from the peripheral
`
`detectors and toward the sensor’s center, thereby reducing light collection and
`
`signal strength. A POSITA would not have been motivated to decrease signal
`
`strength in the manner resulting from Petitioner’s combination.
`
`In short, Ohsaki and Aizawa employ different sensor structures (rectangular
`
`versus circular) for different measurement locations (back side versus palm side of
`
`the wrist), using different sensor surface shapes (convex versus flat) that are
`
`tailored to those specific measurement locations. Petitioner does not even
`
`acknowledge these differences, much less show a POSITA would have been
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`motivated
`
`to combine
`
`these references and reasonably expected such a
`
`combination to be successful.
`
`Petitioner also adds a third reference, Inokawa, in an attempt to satisfy the
`
`claimed requirement of multiple emitters. Petitioner argues the ability to detect
`
`body movement would have motivated a POSITA to add a second LED. But
`
`Aizawa already includes the ability to calculate motion load with its single LED.
`
`Adding another LED complicates Aizawa’s sensor and
`
`increases power
`
`consumption—a detrimental result for a wrist-worn device. Petitioner fails to
`
`account for these undesirable results from its proposed combination of references.
`
`Petitioner also argues a second LED would allow Aizawa to transmit data to a base
`
`device with a configuration like that in Inokawa:
`
`
`Petitioner’s Illustration of Inokawa’s Base Device (Pet. 17)
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`But Aizawa’s sensor already includes a wireless transmitter, so Aizawa does
`
`not need to incorporate Inokawa’s onerous base-device data transmission.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kenny, acknowledged that Aizawa indicates no
`
`problems with Aizawa’s form of data transmission. Ex. 2007 409:13-410:2. More
`
`importantly, Aizawa’s goal is “real-time measuring” (Ex. 1006 ¶[0004]), with the
`
`transmitter “transmitting the measured pulse rate data to a display,” (id. ¶[0015]).
`
`Inokawa’s system, however, transmits pulse rate data only when the sensor is
`
`removed from the body and “mounted onto the base device.” See, e.g., Ex. 1008
`
`Abstract. Replacing Aizawa’s wireless transmission with a base-device-transmitter
`
`would eliminate the ability to take and display real-time measurements—one of
`
`Aizawa’s stated goals—while increasing power consumption and cost.
`
`Finally, in an attempt to satisfy the claim’s requirement of “a handheld
`
`computing device in wireless communication with the physiological sensor
`
`device,” Petitioner adds Mendelson 2006’s alleged wireless transmitter and PDA to
`
`Petitioner’s combination of Aizawa, Inokawa, and Ohsaki. This addition makes no
`
`sense because Petitioner’s combination already replaced Aizawa’s wireless
`
`transmitter with Inokawa’s base station approach.
`
` Petitioner’s circular
`
`reasoning—where Petitioner arbitrarily removes and then adds back in the same
`
`functionality—is simply hindsight reconstruction of Masimo’s claims.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the asserted
`
`references render the claims obvious. The Board should affirm the patentability of
`
`the ’554 Patent’s challenged claims.
`
`II. MASIMO’S PIONEERING TECHNOLOGY
`
`Masimo is a global medical device technology company that develops and
`
`manufactures innovative patient monitoring technologies, medical devices, and a
`
`wide array of sensors. Inventor Joe Kiani founded Masimo in 1989 as a garage
`
`start-up that revolutionized noninvasive patient monitoring. Today, Masimo is a
`
`publicly traded company that employs over 6,300 people worldwide, with annual
`
`revenues of over $1.1 billion. A host of manufacturers use Masimo’s technology,
`
`including Philips, Atom, Mindray North America, GE Medical, Spacelabs, and
`
`Zoll.
`
`A. The ’554 Patent Claims
`
`Masimo’s U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554 (“’554 Patent”) discloses and claims a
`
`physiological measurement system that uses an innovative design to improve
`
`detection efficiency. Masimo’s claimed sensor and measurement device use
`
`multiple detectors, multiple emitters, and a cover with a protrusion that works with
`
`a wall surrounding the detectors, enhancing sensor and device effectiveness. The
`
`protrusion thins out the measurement site so the measured tissue attenuates less
`
`light. Ex. 1001 7:46-51. The protrusion further increases the area from which
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`attenuated light can be measured. Id. 7:51-53. The wall connecting the cover and
`
`substrate also maximizes the amount of light that impinges on the detectors, further
`
`increasing the signal strength. Id. 36:35-41. The multiple detectors allow for an
`
`averaging of measurements that can reduce errors due to variations in the path of
`
`light passing through the tissue. Id. 9:18-23; see also id. 3:13-24, 4:16-27.
`
`Windows can, inter alia, be used to direct light from the measurement site to the
`
`photodetectors. See, e.g., id. 19:28-38. The inventors discovered these features
`
`work together to provide greater noise cancellation and an order of magnitude
`
`increase in signal strength. Id. 9:18-23, 20:14-30; see also id. 3:13-23, 4:16-27;
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶27.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction To Independent Claims
`
`The ’554 Patent has two independent claims: claims 1 and 20.1 Each is
`
`directed to a physiological measurement system including, among other things: (1)
`
`a plurality of emitters configured to emit light into tissue of a user, (2) at least four
`
`detectors wherein each of the at least four detectors has a corresponding window
`
`that allows light to pass through to the detector, (3) a cover comprising a single
`
`protruding convex surface, (4) a wall that surrounds the detectors; and (5) a
`
`handheld computing device in wireless communication with the physiological
`
`
`1 Appendix A reproduces the claims with bracketed labels for convenience.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`sensor device. See Ex. 1001 Claims 1, 20. Claim 1 illustrates the many interacting
`
`features described in the ’554 Patent. Claim 1 reads:
`
`1. A physiological measurement system comprising:
`
`a physiological sensor device comprising:
`
`a plurality of emitters configured to emit light into tissue of a user;
`
`at least four detectors, wherein each of the at least four detectors has
`
`a corresponding window that allows light to pass through to the detector;
`
`a wall that surrounds at least the at least four detectors; and
`
`a cover that operably connects to the wall and that is configured to be
`
`located between tissue of the user and the at least four detectors when the
`
`physiological sensor device is worn by the user, wherein:
`
`the cover comprises a single protruding convex surface, and
`
`at least a portion of the cover is sufficiently rigid to cause tissue of the
`
`user to conform to at least a portion of a shape of the single protruding
`
`convex surface when the physiological sensor device is worn by the user;
`
`and
`
`a handheld computing device in wireless communication with the
`
`physiological sensor device, wherein the handheld computing device
`
`comprises:
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`one or more processors configured to wirelessly receive one or more
`
`signals from the physiological sensor device, the one or more signals
`
`responsive to at least a physiological parameter of the user;
`
`a touch-screen display configured to provide a user interface,
`
`wherein:
`
`the user interface is configured to display indicia responsive to
`
`measurements of the physiological parameter, and
`
`an orientation of the user interface is configurable responsive to a user
`
`input; and
`
`a storage device configured to at least temporarily store at least the
`
`measurements of the physiological parameter.2
`
`C. The ’554 Patent Prosecution
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner agreed that the claimed combination of
`
`features—including multiple detectors, each with a corresponding window, in
`
`conjunction with a cover comprising a single protruding convex surface—provided
`
`a patentable advance unique in the field. Ex. 1002 at 383-385. Petitioner’s
`
`references do not differ significantly from the prior art the Examiner considered
`
`and found does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
`
`
`2 Emphasis supplied unless otherwise noted.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`III. THE PETITION’S PROPOSED COMBINATIONS
`
`Petitioner presents two grounds. Pet. 11-12. Ground 1 challenges claims 1-
`
`7 and 20-28 and combines four references: Aizawa (Ex. 1006), Inokawa (Ex.
`
`1007; translation at Ex. 1008), Ohsaki (Ex. 1009), and Mendelson 2006 (Ex.
`
`1010). Ground 2 challenges dependent claims 8-19 based on a combination of five
`
`references, adding Bergey (Ex. 1016) to the combination of Aizawa, Inokawa,
`
`Ohsaki, and Mendelson 2006. Pet. 11-12.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner identifies no terms for construction. The Board should give the
`
`claim
`
`terms
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, consistent with
`
`the
`
`specification, as a POSITA would understand them. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts a POSITA “would have been a person with a working
`
`knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. The person would have had a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of
`
`electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at
`
`least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of
`
`data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring
`
`technologies.” Pet. 10-11. Petitioner asserts “[a]dditional education in a relevant
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`field or industry experience may compensate for one of the other aspects of the
`
`POSITA characteristics stated above.” Id.
`
`Masimo notes that Petitioner’s asserted level of skill (1) requires no
`
`coursework, training or experience with optics or optical physiological monitors;
`
`(2) requires no coursework, training or experience in physiology; and (3) focuses
`
`on data processing and not sensor design. For this proceeding, Masimo
`
`nonetheless applies Petitioner’s asserted level of skill. Ex. 2004 ¶¶32-35.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A petition based on “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`
`claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)). A patent claim is not
`
`obvious unless “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the
`
`skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`To prevail on any obviousness ground, a petitioner may not simply identify
`
`individual claim components—it must show why a “skilled artisan, with no
`
`knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for
`
`combination in the manner claimed.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`2000). The petitioner must support even simple modifications with some
`
`motivation to make the change. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984).
`
`An appropriate obviousness inquiry cannot involve even a “hint of
`
`hindsight.” Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1375
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). A petitioner may not “simply retrace[] the path of the inventor
`
`with hindsight, discount[] the number and complexity of the alternatives, and
`
`conclude[] that the invention ... was obvious.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v.
`
`Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Likewise, “[c]are must
`
`be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide
`
`through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right
`
`way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d
`
`1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`VII. GROUND 1 FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS
`A. Ground 1’s Cited Art And Asserted Combination
`
`Ground 1, like all of Petitioner’s grounds, combines Aizawa, Inokawa,
`
`Ohsaki, and Mendelson 2006.
`
` These references each disclose different
`
`physiological sensor designs, with distinct shapes, features, and detector-emitter
`
`configurations. This section introduces Petitioner’s proposed combination of
`
`Ohsaki and Aizawa, discusses Dr. Kenny’s erroneous characterization of Ohsaki,
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`and then discusses Petitioner’s conflicting proposed addition of Inokawa and
`
`Mendelson 2006 to the combination of Ohsaki and Aizawa.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Combination Of Ohsaki And Aizawa
`
`Ohsaki discloses a pulse rate sensor with a single emitter (e.g., an LED) and
`
`a single detector disposed linearly, side-by-side, under a translucent board. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1009 Abstract, Fig. 2, ¶[0019]; Ex. 2004 ¶37.
`
`
`
`Ohsaki (Ex. 1009) Figs. 1 and 2 (annotated, color added)
`
`Ohsaki’s linearly arranged detector and emitter (above) result in a longitudinal
`
`shape and direction that Ohsaki explains is important to reduce slipping when
`
`placed against the backhand side of the wrist. See Ex. 1009 ¶[0019] (if the
`
`longitudinal direction of Ohsaki’s detecting element 2 “agrees with
`
`the
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`circumferential direction of the user’s wrist 4, it has a tendency to slip off.
`
`Therefore it is desirable that the detecting element 2 is arranged so that its
`
`longitudinal direction agrees with the longitudinal direction of the user’s arm.”).
`
`Ohsaki includes a “dedicated belt” that “fix[es] the detecting element 2 on the
`
`user’s wrist 4 in this way.” Id. ¶[0019]. Ohsaki repeatedly states that its sensor “is
`
`worn on the back side of a user’s wrist corresponding to the back of the user’s
`
`hand.” Ex. 1009 Abstract; see also id. Title, ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0016], [0024]; Ex.
`
`2004 ¶37.
`
`In contrast, Aizawa discloses a sensor with four periphery-located
`
`photodetectors (22) around a single centrally located LED (21). Ex. 1006 Abstract,
`
`Fig. 1B.; Ex. 2004 ¶¶42-43.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`DETECTOR
`
`LED
`
`DETECTOR
`
`Aizawa Fig. 1B (cross-sectional view, color added)
`
`
`
`Aizawa’s Features
` Green: central LED
`(21)
` Red: peripheral
`detectors (22)
`
`
`
`
`
`Aizawa Fig. 1A (top-down view, color added)
`
`Aizawa uses this specific configuration of multiple detectors arrayed around a
`
`single LED to ensure that at least one detector is near the measurement site, which
`
`Aizawa indicates improves measurement consistency. Ex. 1006 ¶[0027]. Aizawa
`
`detects signals on the palm side of the wrist and explains that as long as “one of the
`
`photodetectors 22 is located near the artery 11,” it is “possible to detect a pulse
`
`wave accurately.” Id. ¶¶[0026]-[0027], Fig. 2. Aizawa includes a flat transparent
`
`plate (6) that improves adhesion between the detector and the wrist, which Aizawa
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`states improves the detection efficiency. Id. [0030]. Aizawa’s sensor does not use
`
`a lens. Ex. 2004 ¶¶42-43.
`
`Petitioner argues a POSITA would have added Ohsaki’s translucent board,
`
`designed for a linear pulse sensor, to Aizawa’s circular sensor. Pet. 34-38. But
`
`Petitioner never identifies with specificity the resulting structure. Petitioner
`
`asserts: “[a]s shown below, the POSITA would have found it obvious to modify
`
`the sensor’s flat cover (left) to include a lens/protrusion (right), similar to Ohsaki’s
`
`translucent board 8” (Pet. 36-37):
`
`Petitioner’s Illustration (Pet. 37)
`
`
`
`Petitioner never identifies whether Ohsaki’s longitudinal board is simply placed
`
`over Aizawa, or whether its shape is changed to be circular to match Aizawa’s
`
`shape and detector arrangement. Ex. 2004 ¶¶45-46.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`2.
`
`Dr. Kenny’s Erroneous Characterization Of Ohsaki
`
`At his deposition, Dr. Kenny injected even more confusion into Petitioner’s
`
`combinations. Dr. Kenny testified he did not know the shape of Ohsaki’s board
`
`and that Ohsaki’s board could be “circular or square or rectangular.” Ex. 2008
`
`68:21-70:1, 71:7-72:10. Dr. Kenny is incorrect. Ohsaki illustrates two cross-
`
`sectional views of its board that confirm the board is rectangular (and not circular
`
`or square). Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41.
`
`Specifically, Ohsaki Figure 2 (below left) illustrates the “long” side of
`
`Ohsaki’s detector element (2) that extends from left to right in Figure 2 and in the
`
`longitudinal direction (up-and-down the arm) on a user’s wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶[0019];
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41.
`
`Ohsaki Ex. 1009 Fig. 2 (left) & Fig. 1 (right) showing different cross-sections
`(color added: Purple: detecting element 2/package 5; Blue: translucent board 8)
`
`
`Figure 2 (above left) shows that the board (8) spans nearly the entire length of the
`
`detecting element’s (2) “long” side. Ohsaki Figure 1 (above right) shows the
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`“short” side of Ohsaki’s detecting element (2) that extends from left to right in
`
`Figure 1 and in the circumferential direction (around) of the user’s wrist. Ex. 1009
`
`¶¶[0012], [0019]; see also Ex. 2008 118:3-119:7, 120:5-13, 121:3-15 (Dr. Kenny
`
`confirming longitudinal directionality); Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41. As shown in Figure 1
`
`above, the board’s length (8, blue) is much shorter than the detecting element’s
`
`length (2, purple) in the circumferential direction. Ex. 1009 ¶¶[0012], [0019],
`
`Figs. 1, 2; see also Ex. 2008 118:3-119:7, 120:5-13, 121:3-15; Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41.
`
`Taken together, a POSITA would have understood that Ohsaki’s figures and
`
`description show that both Ohsaki’s detecting element (2) and board (8) have a
`
`very pronounced longitudinal directionality and are much longer than they are
`
`wide. Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41; Ex. 1009 Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶[0012], [0017], [0019]. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that the top-down view of Ohsaki’s sensor—
`
`including the package, board, and emitter and detector—would look approximately
`
`like the figure below:
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`Drawing based on Ohsaki, illustrating the sensor’s rectangular shape
`Ex. 2004 ¶40
`This is consistent with the remainder of Ohsaki, which emphasizes that the sensor
`
`has a longitudinal direction that must be aligned with the longitudinal direction of
`
`the user’s arm to prevent slippage. Ex. 1009 ¶[0019]; Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-41.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Addition Of Inokawa To The Combination of Ohsaki
`and Aizawa
`
`In an attempt to satisfy the claim’s requirement of both a plurality of
`
`emitters and at least four detectors, Petitioner is also forced to include a third
`
`reference in its combination: Inokawa. Inokawa does not disclose a sensor with
`
`multiple emitters and multiple detectors.
`
` Nevertheless, Petitioner argues
`
`Inokawa’s discussion of the ability to detect body movement would have
`
`motivated a POSITA to add a second emitter to Aizawa. Pet. 22-23. Petitioner
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`argues a second emitter would also enable Aizawa to transmit data to a base device
`
`with a configuration like Inokawa (id. 23-24):
`
`
`Petitioner’s Illustration of Inokawa’s Base Device (id. 17)
`
`As shown above, Inokawa’s base-station approach only transmits data when the
`
`sensor is mounted on the base device. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 Abstract. Thus,
`
`Inokawa’s cumbersome system requires the user to remove the monitoring device
`
`from the user and attach it to a base station before the sensor can transmit data. Ex.
`
`2007 405:2-7; see, e.g., Ex. 1008 Figs. 3, 8; Ex. 2004 ¶¶47-48.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Addition Of Mendelson 2006 To The Combination Of
`Ohsaki, Aizawa, And Inokawa
`
`Finally, in an attempt to satisfy the claims’ requirement of a handheld
`
`computing device in wireless communication with the physiological sensor device,
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01539
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`Petitioner is forced to add a fourth re

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket