`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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