Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Masimo Corporation (Patent Owner)
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695
`
`Before Hon. Josiah C. Cocks, Robert L. Kinder, Amanda F. Wieker
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1023
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01722
`
`1
`
`
`v.
`Masimo Corporation (Patent Owner)
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695
`
`Before Hon. Josiah C. Cocks, Robert L. Kinder, Amanda F. Wieker
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1023
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01722
`
`1
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Petition, 2-3; see Institution Decision (Paper 8), 9-10, 25; Ex. 2004
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Issues Narrowed to Claims 6, 14, and 21
`
`Reply, 1 note 1 (citing Exhibit 2004)
`
`’695 patent, claim 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Grounds Remaining After Masimo’s Disclaimer
`
`Petition, 2-3; see Institution Decision (Paper 8), 9-10, 25; Ex. 2004
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Overview of the ’695 Patent
`
`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`Issue 1: Masimo's Tissue Thickness Arguments are Ineffectual
`
`Issue 2: Masimo’s “Experiment” is Unavailing
`
`Issue 3: A POSITA would have had a Reasonable Expectation
`of Success when Performing the Proposed Modifications
`
`Issue 4: Masimo Mischaracterizes the Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`9
`
`14
`
`25
`
`31
`
`38
`
`5
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’695 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`’695 Patent Overview
`
`APPLE-1001, Abstract
`
`APPLE-1001, 8:9-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 3
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`’695 Patent Overview
`
`APPLE-1001, claims 6, 14, 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Chin Overview
`
`APPLE-1006, 8:25-29 (cited at Petition, 61)
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 7B (from POR, 19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Sarantos / Mendeslon 1991 Overview
`
`Petition, 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 41
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ackermans Overview
`
`APPLE-1015, Abstract (cited at Petition, 64)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1016, FIG. 2 (from Petition, 65)
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Chin in Combination with Sarantos / Ackermans
`
`Petition, 62; see also 103
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 62, 103
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Issue 1
`
`Masimo's Tissue Thickness Arguments are
`Ineffectual
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`POR, 17
`
`POR, 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 5
`
`Chin
`
`APPLE-1006, 5:55-56 (cited at Reply, 5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Webster
`
`APPLE-1021, 88 (cited at Reply, 6)
`
`APPLE-1021, 91 (cited at Reply, 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`Reply, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1003, [99] (cited at Petition, 63)
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Chin
`
`Reply, 4
`
`APPLE-1006, 5:55-56 (cited at Reply, 5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`POR, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Chin
`
`Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`APPLE-1006, 5:55-56 (cited at Reply, 5)
`
`22
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`POR, 34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Masimo's tissue thickness arguments are ineffectual
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Chin
`
`Reply, 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`APPLE-1006, 5:55-56 (cited at Reply, 5)
`
`24
`
`
`
`Issue 2
`
`Masimo’s “Experiment” is Unavailing
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`Masimo’s “experiment” is unavailing
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`POR, 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Masimo’s “experiment” is unavailing
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 7
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Masimo’s “experiment” is unavailing
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 7
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`Masimo’s “experiment” is unavailing
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 8 (quoting Sarantos, Mendelson 1991)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`Masimo’s “experiment” is unavailing
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`
`
`Issue 3
`
`A POSITA would have had a Reasonable
`Expectation of Success when Performing the
`Proposed Modifications
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Sarantos-Mendelson and Chin
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`POR, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Sarantos-Mendelson and Chin
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Sarantos-Mendelson and Chin
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, [98] (cited at Petition, 62)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Ackermans and Chin
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`POR, 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`35
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Ackermans and Chin
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`36
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining Ackermans and Chin
`Dr. Anthony’s Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, [162] (cited at Petition, 104)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`37
`
`
`
`Issue 4
`
`Masimo’s Arguments Rely on
`Mischaracterizations of the Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`38
`
`
`
`Masimo mischaracterizes Sarantos
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Reply, 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`39
`
`
`
`Masimo mischaracterizes Chin
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Chin
`
`POR, 12, 23, 34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`APPLE-1006, 5:55-56 (cited at Reply, 5)
`
`40
`
`
`
`Masimo mischaracterizes the Sarantos/Chin combination
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Reply, 12
`
`41
`
`
`
`Masimo mischaracterizes Ackermans
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`Reply, 16
`
`42
`
`
`
`Appendix
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)– NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`43
`
`
`
`Overview of the Instituted Grounds
`
`Grounds covering only disclaimed claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 2-3; see Institution Decision
`(Paper 8), 9-10, 25; Ex. 2004
`
`44
`
`44
`
`
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
