`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01713
`U.S. Patent 10,624,564
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`Masimo Ex. 2004
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01713
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 8
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW .................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 10
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 12
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION TO MASIMO’S ’564 PATENT ..................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’564 Patent ................................................................................... 13
`
`Introduction To The Independent Claim Of The ’564
`Patent ................................................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION’S PROPOSED COMBINATIONS .................................... 16
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 17
`
`VII. GROUND 1 DOES NOT ESTABLISH OBVIOUSNESS ........................... 18
`
`A.
`
`Introduction To Ground 1 ................................................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ohsaki Discloses A Pulse Rate Sensor With A
`Single Emitter And A Single Detector That
`Must Be Arranged Linearly On The Back Side
`Of The Wrist ............................................................................. 18
`
`The Shape Of Ohsaki’s Board .................................................. 20
`
`Aizawa Discloses A Circular Pulse Sensor .............................. 23
`
`Ground 1’s Proposed Motivation To Combine
`Three References ....................................................................... 24
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Ohsaki’s Board With Aizawa’s Sensor ............................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That
`Ohsaki’s Rectangular Board Would Not Work
`With Aizawa’s Circular Sensor Arrangement .......................... 27
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That
`Ohsaki’s Board Would Have Been Detrimental
`In Combination With Aizawa’s Sensor Because
`Ohsaki’s Board “Has A Tendency To Slip” At
`Aizawa’s Measurement Location On The Palm
`Side Of The Wrist, Near The Artery ......................................... 36
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Reduce The Measured Optical Signal By
`Adding A Convex Lens To Aizawa’s Sensor ........................... 52
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Selected A
`Convex Cover To Protect The Sensor’s Optical
`Elements .................................................................................... 59
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Goldsmith Does Not Provide A Motivation To
`Combine Ohsaki and Aizawa .............................................................. 61
`
`The Challenged Dependent Claims Are Nonobvious
`Over Ground 1 ..................................................................................... 61
`
`VIII. GROUNDS 2-3 FAIL FOR THE SAME REASONS AS
`GROUND 1 ................................................................................................... 65
`
`IX. GROUNDS 4-6 FAIL FOR THE SAME REASON AS
`GROUNDS 1-3 .............................................................................................. 67
`
`X. OATH ............................................................................................................ 69
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner Masimo
`
`Corporation (“Masimo”) as an independent expert witness in this proceeding. I
`
`have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the Petition in this action and
`
`the declaration offered by Thomas W. Kenny, Ph.D., (Ex. 1003) challenging the
`
`patentability of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564 (“the ’564 Patent”). I
`
`am being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spend
`
`working on this proceeding, and my compensation is not affected by its outcome.
`
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS
`2. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is included as Exhibit 2005. A summary of my qualifications follows.
`
`3.
`
`I am a professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”). I have worked in the area of
`
`digital signal processing, wireless communications, computer engineering,
`
`integrated circuit design, and software engineering for over 25 years, and have
`
`authored, co-authored, or edited several books and numerous peer-reviewed
`
`technical papers in these area.
`
`4.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. While there, I received the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award and the IEEE/ACM Ira
`
`M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize.
`
`5.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a tenured full
`
`professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Among other things, I have
`
`been active in the areas of digital signal processing, wireless communications,
`
`integrated circuit design (analog & digital), system-level design methodologies and
`
`tools, and software engineering. I have been the principal investigator (“PI”) or
`
`co-PI in several active research programs in these areas, including DARPA’s
`
`Rapid Prototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors, the State of
`
`Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated Sensors
`
`Laboratory Program, and
`
`the United States Air Force Electronics Parts
`
`Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty Award and NSF’s
`
`Research Initiation Award. I have been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons
`
`Terman Medal by
`
`the American Society of Engineering Education for
`
`contributions to Electrical Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook
`
`in the design of VLSI digital signal processors.
`
`6.
`
`During the past 20 years at Georgia Tech, I have created and taught
`
`undergraduate and graduate courses in hardware and software design for signal
`
`processing, computer engineering (software and hardware systems), computer
`
`engineering and wireless communication circuits.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of digital
`
`signal processing since the late 1980s, and I am the Editor-in-Chief of the CRC
`
`Press’s 3-volume Digital Signal Processing Handbook (1998, 2010).
`
`8.
`
`I have founded three companies in the areas of signal processing,
`
`embedded software, military chipsets involving imaging technology, and software
`
`for computing and communications systems. I have supervised Ph.D. dissertations
`
`of over twenty engineers in the areas of computer engineering, signal processing,
`
`communications, rapid prototyping, and system-level design methodology.
`
`9.
`
` I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks such as wireless audio
`
`and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, such as cell
`
`phones and PDAs. I have designed systems that are efficient in view of
`
`performance, size, weight, area, and thermal considerations. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship of the United
`
`States Department of Defense in the late 1990s, are available for educational use at
`
`http://www.eda.org/rassp and have been used by several U.S. and international
`
`universities as part of their course work. Some of my recent publications in the
`
`area of design of computer engineering and wireless communications systems and
`
`associated protocols are listed in Exhibit 2005.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In the mid 2006-2007 timeframe, I collaborated with Professor John
`
`Scharf and his colleagues at Emory Healthcare system in developing FFT-based
`
`pulse oximetry system prototypes on FPGAs, which extended technologies
`
`developed by Prof. Scharf and his colleagues from the 1996 time frame (See T.
`
`Rusch, R. Sankar, J. Scharf, “Signal Processing Methods for Pulse Oximetry”,
`
`Comput. Bio. Med, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1996). Some of my more recent publications in
`
`the area of biological signal processing and bioinformatics are listed in my CV and
`
`include, A. Bahga, V. Madisetti, “Healthcare Data Integration and Informatics in
`
`the Cloud”, IEEE Computer, Vol. 48, Issue 2, 2015, and “Cloud-Based
`
`Information Integration Informatics Framework for Healthcare Applications”,
`
`IEEE Computer, Issue 99, 2013. In addition to my signal processing experience
`
`specific to pulse oximetry, I also have experience in developing systems for other
`
`physiological signals. Beginning in the early 1990s, I worked, in particular, with
`
`ECG/EKG signals, and, in general, with biomedical signals and systems.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my signal processing experience specific to pulse
`
`oximetry, I also have experience in developing algorithms and systems for other
`
`physiological signals. I worked with ECG/EKG signals in particular, and
`
`biomedical signals and systems in general, beginning in the early 1990s. In
`
`particular, I worked with graduate student Dr. Shahram Famorzadeh, in 1990 and
`
`1991, to analyze and apply pattern recognition (a category of signal processing
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`algorithms that is based on correlation with a set of templates) to ECG/EKG
`
`waveforms to identify physiological conditions.
`
`12.
`
`I have experience with biomedical signals and devices in the field of
`
`speech and image processing since the late 1980s. I worked on deconvolution
`
`algorithms to recover the state of the system based on observed measurements of
`
`the physiological signals in the 1993-1998 time-frame. These signal processing
`
`techniques can be applied to pulse oximetry signals, and I have been working with
`
`these techniques since the mid-1980s.
`
`13.
`
`I have studied, researched and published in the area of adaptive filter
`
`signal processing for noise reduction and signal prediction, using correlation-based
`
`approaches since the mid-1980s, both in the time-domain and frequency domain,
`
`and also to ray-tracing applications, such as Seismic Migration for oil and shale
`
`gas exploration. See for instance, V. Madisetti & D. Messerschmitt, Dynamically
`
`Reduced Complexity Implementation of Echo Cancellers, IEEE International
`
`Conference on Speech, Acoustics and Signal Processing, ICASSP 1986, Tokyo,
`
`Japan, and M. Romdhane and V. Madisetti, “All-Digital Oversampled Front-End
`
`Sensors” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 3, Issue 2, 1996, and “LMSGEN: A
`
`Prototyping Environment for Programmable Adaptive Digital Filters in VLSI”,
`
`VLSI Signal processing, pp. 33-42, 1994.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Deconvolution of symmetric (seismic) and asymmetric (pulse
`
`oximetry) signals has gained much importance in the past two decades, and some
`
`of my early work on “Homomorphic Deconvolution of Bandpass Signals” in IEEE
`
`Transactions on Signal Processing, October 1997, established several new methods
`
`for deconvolution of such signals that had several advantages of robustness,
`
`increased accuracy, and simplicity.
`
`15.
`
`In the past decade I have authored several peer-reviewed papers in the
`
`area of computer systems, instruments, and software design, and these include:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Madisetti, et al., “The Georgia Tech Digital Signal Multiprocessor,
`
`IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 41, No. 7, July 1993.
`
`V. Madisetti et al., “Rapid Prototyping on the Georgia Tech Digital
`
`Signal Multiprocessor”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol.
`
`42, March 1994.
`
`V. Madisetti, “Reengineering legacy embedded systems”, IEEE
`
`Design & Test of Computers, Vol. 16, Vol. 2, 1999.
`
`V. Madisetti
`
`et
`
`al.,
`
`“Virtual Prototyping of Embedded
`
`Microcontroller-based DSP Systems”, IEEE Micro, Vol. 15, Issue 5,
`
`1995.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Madisetti, et al., “Incorporating Cost Modeling in Embedded-
`
`System Design”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol. 14, Issue 3,
`
`1997.
`
`
`
`V. Madisetti, et al., “Conceptual Prototyping of Scalable Embedded
`
`DSP Systems”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol. 13, Issue 3,
`
`1996.
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Madisetti, Electronic System, Platform & Package Codesign,”
`
`IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol. 23, Issue 3, June 2006.
`
`V. Madisetti, et al., “A Dynamic Resource Management and
`
`Scheduling Environment
`
`for Embedded Multimedia
`
`and
`
`Communications Platforms”, IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, Vol.
`
`3, Issue 1, 2011.
`
`16.
`
`I have been active in the areas of signal processing systems and
`
`mobile device communication systems for several years, and some of my
`
`publications in this area include “Frequency Dependent Space-Interleaving of
`
`MIMO OFDM Systems” Proc. of IEEE Radio and Wireless Conference
`
`(RAWCON ’03), 2003, “Embedded Alamouti Space Time Codes for High Rate
`
`and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. IEEE Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems,
`
`and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes for Fast Decoding in Time
`
`Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications (2011).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`17. Below is a listing of documents and materials that I considered and
`
`reviewed in connection with providing this declaration. In forming my opinions, I
`
`considered those materials as well as anything cited or discussed in this
`
`declaration.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564 (“’564 Patent”)
`File History for the ’564 Patent
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0188210 (“Aizawa”)
`JP 2006-296564 (“Inokawa”)
`Certified English Translation of Inokawa and Translator’s
`Declaration
`U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0056243 (“Ohsaki”)
`“A Wearable Reflectance Pulse Oximeter for Remote
`Physiological Monitoring,” Y. Mendelson et al.; Proceedings of
`the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, 2006;
`pp. 912-915 (“Mendelson-2006”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0093786 (“Goldsmith”)
`processor, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed.,
`Merriam Webster Inc., 1999
`U.S. Patent No. 4,941,236 (“Sherman”)
`“Design and Evaluation of a New Reflectance Pulse Oximeter
`Sensor,” Y. Mendelson et al., Medical Instrumentation, Vol. 22,
`No. 4, 1988; pp. 167-173 (“Mendelson-1988”)
`US Pub. No. 2008/0194932 (“Ayers”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,558,622 (“Tran”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,217 (“Kuhn”)
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1041
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2010
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Paper 2
`Paper 7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,656,393 (“King”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,584,336 (“Ali”)
`US Pub. No. 2004/0054291 (“Schulz”)
`Design of Pulse Oximeters, J.G. Webster; Institution of Physics
`Publishing, 1997 (“Webster”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,912,413 (“Rantala”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,251,513 (“Kondoh”)
`US Pub. No. 2004/0152957 (“Stivoric”)
`JP Pub. No. 2005-270543 (“Otanagi”)
`Certified English Translation of Otanagi and Translator’s
`Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 8,040,758 (“Dickinson”)
`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)
`Frank H. Netter, M.D., Section VI Upper Limb, Atlas of
`Human Anatomy (2003), Third Edition (“Netter”)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2020-01520
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01520
`Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2020-01713
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`IPR2020-01713
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`I am not an attorney and will not be offering legal conclusions.
`
`18.
`
`However, I have been informed of several principles concerning the legal issues
`
`relevant to analyzing the challenges to the claims of the ’564 Patent, and I used
`
`these principles in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`A. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`19.
`I understand that certain issues in an IPR, such as claim construction
`
`and whether a claim is invalid as obvious, are assessed from the view of a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the level of education and experience of
`
`persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the sophistication of
`
`the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field; and (4) the
`
`prior art solutions to those problems. I understand that this hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill is presumed to have had knowledge from the teachings of the prior
`
`art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) and its
`
`Declarant Dr. Kenny have set forth the following definition for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”): “someone with a working knowledge of
`
`physiological monitoring technologies. The person would have had a Bachelor of
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Alternatively, the person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a
`
`relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in
`
`the same discipline.” Ex. 1003 ¶21. I discuss the asserted level of skill further
`
`below, in Section VI of this declaration.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`21.
`I understand that claim construction in an IPR is a legal question for
`
`the Board to decide. I also understand, however, that in construing claim terms,
`
`the Board asks what the terms would mean to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art in view of the disclosures in the patent and the prosecution history of
`
`the patent. I understand that the Board may also consider external evidence, such
`
`as dictionaries. In general, however, I understand that claim terms are given the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
`
`apply to them in the context of the patent at the time the patent was filed.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that Apple did not identify any terms for construction. I
`
`have given the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning in my analysis.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness
`23.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under the patent law, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103, if, at the time the claimed invention was made, the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that the following
`
`facts are considered in determining whether a claimed invention is invalid as
`
`obvious in view of the prior art: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art; and (3) the differences, if any, between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand there are additional considerations that may be used
`
`in evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious. These include whether the
`
`claimed invention was the result of (a) a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention; (b) a combination of prior art elements combined
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (c) a simple substitution
`
`of one known element for another to obtain a predicable result; (d) the use of a
`
`known technique to improve similar things in the same way; (e) applying a known
`
`technique to a known thing ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (f)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (g) known work in one field of endeavor
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`prompting variations of it for use in either the same filed or a different one based
`
`on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`I have applied this understanding in my analysis.
`
`I understand that Dr. Kenny carried out his analysis of patentability as
`
`of July 3, 2008. Ex. 1003 ¶¶16, 23. I likewise carry out my analysis of
`
`patentability as of July 3, 2008. I do not offer any opinions regarding priority in
`
`this declaration.
`
`IV.
`INTRODUCTION TO MASIMO’S ’564 PATENT
`A. The ’564 Patent
`27. Masimo’s U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564 (“’564 Patent”) is generally
`
`directed to optical physiological measurement devices that use a combination of
`
`different design elements and improve optical detection efficiency. Masimo’s
`
`claims are directed to user-worn noninvasive optical physiological measurement
`
`devices. These claims include at least four detectors, one or more emitters, and a
`
`cover with a protruding convex surface that works in conjunction with a wall to
`
`enhance the device’s effectiveness. The ’564 Patent explains that these different
`
`pieces work together to provide greater noise cancellation and an order of
`
`magnitude increase in signal strength. Ex. 1001 9:28-33, 20:25-42; see also 3:22-
`
`32, 4:25-35. For example, the ’564 Patent helps address issues related to light
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`attenuation and errors resulting from the variations in the path of light passing
`
`through tissue. The ’564 Patent identifies several different benefits to the use of a
`
`protrusion in conjunction with the sensor or measurement device. For instance,
`
`the protrusion thins out a measurement site on the body, resulting in less light
`
`attenuation by a measured tissue for the sensor or device. Ex. 1001 7:54-61. The
`
`protrusion also further increases the area from which attenuated light can be
`
`measured. Ex. 1001 7:61-63. The wall or housing may also play a role by
`
`allowing maximization of the amount of tissue-attenuated light that impinges on
`
`the detectors. Ex. 1001 36:45-51. The multiple detectors in the sensor or device
`
`of the ’564 Patent allow for an averaging of measurements, and the averaging of
`
`measurements can reduce errors due to variations in the path of light passing
`
`through the tissue. Ex. 1001 9:28-33; see also 3:22-32, 4:25-35.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction To The Independent Claim Of The ’564 Patent
`28. The ’564 Patent has one independent claim: claims 1. Claim 1 reads
`
`as follows:
`
`A user-worn physiological measurement device comprising:
`
`one or more emitters configured to emit light into tissue of a user;
`
`at least four detectors arranged on a substrate;
`
`a cover comprising a protruding convex surface, wherein the
`
`protruding convex surface extends over all of the at least four detectors
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`arranged on the substrate, wherein at least a portion of the protruding convex
`
`surface is rigid;
`
`one or more processors configured to:
`
`receive one or more signals from at least one of the at least four
`
`detectors, the one or more signals responsive to at least a
`
`physiological parameter of the user; and
`
`process the one or more signals to determine measurements of
`
`the physiological parameter;
`
`a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile phone;
`
`a touch-screen display configured to provide a user interface, wherein:
`
`the user interface is configured to display indicia responsive to
`
`the measurements of the physiological parameter, and
`
`an orientation of the user interface is configurable responsive to
`
`a user input;
`
`a wall that surrounds at least the at least four detectors, wherein the
`
`wall operably connects to the substrate and the cover;
`
`a storage device configured to at least temporarily store at least the
`
`measurements of the physiological parameter; and
`
`a strap configured to position the physiological measurement device
`
`on the user.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`V. THE PETITION’S PROPOSED COMBINATIONS
`29. Petitioner presents six grounds. Ground 1 combines Ohsaki (Ex.
`
`1009), Aizawa (Ex. 1006), and Goldsmith (Ex. 1011). Pet. 9. Grounds 2-3
`
`challenge dependent claims and combine additional references with Ohsaki,
`
`Aizawa, and Goldsmith. Pet. 9. Ground 4 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith,
`
`and Ali (Ex. 1019). Pet 9. Grounds 5-6 challenge dependent claims and combine
`
`additional references with Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, and Ali. Pet. 9.
`
` Ground 1 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, and Goldsmith. Ground 1
`
`challenges claims 1-10 and 13-30.
`
` Ground 2 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, and Sherman (Ex.
`
`1013). Ground 2 challenges claim 11.
`
` Ground 3 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, and Rantala (Ex.
`
`1022). Ground 3 challenges claim 12.
`
` Ground 4 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, and Ali. Ground 4
`
`challenges claims 1-10 and 13-30.
`
` Ground 5 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, Ali, and Sherman.
`
`Ground 5 challenges claim 11.
`
` Ground 6 combines Ohsaki, Aizawa, Goldsmith, Ali, and Rantala.
`
`Ground 6 challenges claim 12.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`30. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA “would have been a person with a
`
`working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. The [POSITA]
`
`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. 8. Alternatively, Petitioner asserts a
`
`POSITA could have “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or industry
`
`experience may compensate for one of the other aspects of the POSITA
`
`characteristics stated above.” Pet. 8.
`
`31. Dr. Kenny states that he applies a similar level of skill in his analysis
`
`stating that a “one of ordinary skill in the art relating to, and at the time of, the
`
`invention of the ’564 Patent would have been someone 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.
`
`Alternatively, the person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in
`
`the same discipline.” Ex. 1003 ¶21.
`
`32.
`
`I note that the 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. In responding to Dr. Kenny’s opinions in this
`
`proceeding, I apply Dr. Kenny’s and Petitioner’s asserted level of skill.
`
`33.
`
`In addition, as noted above, I understand that Dr. Kenny carried out
`
`his analysis of patentability as of July 3, 2008. Ex. 1003 ¶¶16, 23. In responding
`
`to Dr. Kenny’s opinions, I also apply the July 3, 2008 date in my analysis. I do
`
`not offer any opinions regarding priority in this declaration.
`
`A.
`
`VII. GROUND 1 DOES NOT ESTABLISH OBVIOUSNESS
`Introduction To Ground 1
`34. Dr. Kenny’s combination for Ground 1 combines three references:
`
`Ohsaki, Aizawa, and Goldsmith. Ex. 1003 ¶¶66-170.
`
`1. Ohsaki Discloses A Pulse Rate Sensor With A Single Emitter And
`A Single Detector That Must Be Arranged Linearly On The Back
`Side Of The Wrist
`35. Ohsaki is directed to a pulse rate sensor with a single emitter (e.g., an
`
`LED) and a single detector that are positioned linearly, side-by-side, under a
`
`translucent “board.” See, e.g., Ex. 1009 Abstract, Fig. 2, ¶[0019]. Ohsaki
`
`explains that the linearly arranged detector and emitter (shown in the figures
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`below) likewise results in a longitudinal rectangular shape and directionality,
`
`which Ohsaki explains is important for its benefit of reducing slipping when
`
`placed against the backhand side of the wrist. See Ex. 1009 ¶[0019] (If
`
`longitudinal direction “agrees with the 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” 10 that “fix[es]
`
`the detecting element 2 on the user’s wrist 4 in this way”—in a longitudinal
`
`direction up-and-down the user’s wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶[0019]. Ohsaki consistently
`
`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]. Figure 1 of Ohsaki (below left) is a cross section of the
`
`device when “worn on the back side of the user’s wrist 4 corresponding to the
`
`back of the user’s hand in the similar manner as a wristwatch is normally worn.”
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶[0016], Fig. 1.
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ohsaki Fig. 1 (left), showing the cross-sectional view of Ohsaki’s sensor in the
`circumferential direction (across the wrist) and Fig. 2 (right) showing the cross-
`sectional view of Ohsaki’s sensor in the longitudinal direction (up-and-down arm)
`
`2.
`The Shape Of Ohsaki’s Board
`36. Ohsaki shows two cross-sectional views of its board that a POSITA
`
`would have considered together to confirm that the board is rectangular. Ohsaki
`
`Figure 2 (below left) illustrates the “long” side of Ohsaki’s detector element (2)
`
`that extends from left to right in Ohskai’s Figure 2, and is shown in the cross
`
`section as positioned in the longitudinal direction (up-and-down the arm) on a
`
`user’s wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶[0019].
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ohsaki (Ex. 1009) Fig. 2 (left, showing long direction of the detecting element (2),
`pointing up-and-down the arm) & Fig. 1 (right, showing short direction of the
`detecting element (2), in the circumferential direction of the wrist) depict different
`cross-sections (color added)
`(Purple: detecting element (2)/package (5); Blue: translucent board (8))
`
`
`
`37. Figure 2 (shown above left) illustrates that Ohsaki’s board (8, in blue)
`
`is nearly as long as the entire length of the package (5, in purple) in the direction
`
`of detecting element’s (2) “long” side. Ohsaki explains that its “detecting
`
`element” includes the “package 5, a light emitting element 6 (e.g., LED), a light
`
`receiving element 7 (e.g., PD), and a translucent board 8.” Ex. 1009 ¶[0017].
`
`Figure 1 (shown above right) illustrates the “short” side of Ohsaki’s detecting
`
`element (2), which extends from left to right on the page in Figure 1 and shows
`
`the cross-section in the circumferential direction of the sensor on (around) the
`
`user’s wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶¶[0012], [0019]. As shown in Ohsaki’s Figure 1 (shown
`
`above right), the board’s length (8, blue) is narrower (approximately one third the
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`size) than the detecting element’s length (2, purple) in the circumferential
`
`direction.
`
`38. Ohsaki’s figures and description would have thus indicated to a
`
`POSITA that the board (8) has a long rectangular shape with a pronounced
`
`longitudinal directionality, and thus is much longer than it is wide. Ex. 1009
`
`¶¶[0012], [0017], [0019], Figs. 1, 2. Based on Ohsaki’s disclosure, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the top-down view of Ohsaki’s sensor’s “detecting
`
`element”, including the package, board, and emitter and detec
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
