Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01722
`U.S. Patent 10,470,695
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01722
`U.S. Patent 10,470,695
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`CLAIMS 6, 14, AND 21 ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................................ 3
`A. Patent Owner’s invented distinction between “thick tissue” and “thin
`tissue” devices is not supported by the evidence of record ...................... 3
`B. Dr. Madisetti’s experimental results are not indicative of the
`performance of devices with multiple photodetectors .............................. 6
`C. Ground 1D: Claims 6, 14, and 21 are obvious over Sarantos in view of
`Mendelson-1991 and Chin ........................................................................ 9
`1. A POSITA would have been motivated to add Chin’s diffuser to
`the combined device of Sarantos and Mendelson-1991 .................. 9
`2. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`when performing the proposed modification ................................ 10
`Patent Owner's arguments rely on mischaracterizations of the prior
`art that ignore explicit disclosures in the references ..................... 11
`D. Ground 2C: Claims 6, 14, 21 are obvious over Ackermans in view of
`Chin ......................................................................................................... 13
`1. A POSITA would have been motivated to add Chin’s diffuser to
`Ackermans’ device ........................................................................ 13
`2. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`when performing the proposed modification ................................ 14
`Patent Owner’s arguments rely on mischaracterizations of the
`prior art that ignore explicit disclosures in the references ............ 15
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`3.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695 to Al-Ali (“the ’695 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’695 Patent
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Brian W. Anthony, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Reserved
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,998,815 to Venkatraman et al.
`(“Venkatraman”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,343,223 to Chin et al. (“Chin”)
`
`APPLE-1007 to
`APPLE-1013
`
`Reserved
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,946 to Sarantos et al. (“Sarantos”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`Mendelson et al., Skin Reflectance Pulse Oximetry: In Vivo
`Measurements from the Forearm and Calf, Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-12 (January 1991) (“Mendelson-
`1991”)
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`PCT Pub. No. WO 2011/051888 to Ackermans et al.
`(“Ackermans”)
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`Declaration of Jacob Munford
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,295,472 to Adams (“Adams”)
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,298 to Casciani et al. (“Casciani”)
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`Order Re Motion to Stay in Masimo Corporation et al. v. Apple
`Inc., Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE, October 13, 2020
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`Design of Pulse Oximeters, J.G. Webster; Institution of Physics
`Publishing, 1997 (“Webster”)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) submits this Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (“POR”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,470,695 (“the ’695 patent”) filed by Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “Masimo”). As demonstrated below, the POR fails to rebut the positions
`
`advanced in the Petition. Apple therefore respectfully submits that the Board
`
`should find claims 6, 14, and 211 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’695 patent
`
`unpatentable.
`
`For example, Patent Owner attempts to draw a bright line between pulse
`
`oximeters used in body locations having what it terms “thick” tissue (e.g., “the
`
`wrist”), and those used in locations having “thin” tissue (e.g., the “nostril”). See,
`
`e.g., POR, 16-20. The POR characterizes the pulse oximeter described in Chin as a
`
`“thin tissue device” that is so vastly different from “thick tissue” pulse oximeters
`
`(e.g., those described in Sarantos and Ackermans) that Chin’s teachings are
`
`inapplicable to such devices. See id., 19-20; see also APPLE-1022, 23:2-7. But
`
`
`1 The Petition originally challenged claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-19, and 21-30 of the ’695
`
`patent. Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-19 and
`
`22-30, leaving claims 6, 14, and 21 as the only remaining challenged claims. See
`
`Ex. 2004.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner provides no evidentiary support for this alleged dichotomy besides
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`the uncorroborated testimony of its own expert, and ignores Chin’s explicit
`
`disclosure that its sensor “could attach to any body part,” as opposed to only those
`
`having “thin tissue.” See id., 16-20; APPLE-1006, 5:55-56.2 Several arguments in
`
`the POR are based on this faulty “thick” / “thin” dichotomy. As explained below,
`
`these arguments fail.
`
`Patent Owner also relies on the results of an “experiment” by Dr. Madisetti
`
`that involved modifying a Masimo pulse oximetry sensor to include a diffuser, and
`
`measuring the amount of reflected light detected by the sensor when performing a
`
`simulated measurement of a tissue analog. See, e.g., POR, 20 (citing EX2001,
`
`[58]-[59]). But these results are irrelevant to the present proceeding, because the
`
`Masimo pulse oximeter used in these experiments includes a single photodetector,
`
`rather than the plurality of photodetectors included in each of the prior art
`
`combination and required by the claims of the ’695 patent. See EX2001,
`
`Appendix, p. 1; Petition, 11-17, 71-75; APPLE-1001, claim 1 (reciting “a plurality
`
`of detectors”). The device used in Dr. Madisetti’s experiment is thus drastically
`
`different from the devices described in the proposed prior art combinations, and
`
`
`2 All emphasis added unless indicated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`therefore, as explained below, the results of the experiment are not indicative of the
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`performance of the combined prior art devices.
`
`For these and other reasons described herein, Apple respectfully submits that
`
`the Board should find claims 6, 14, and 21 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’695
`
`patent unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIMS 6, 14, AND 21 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`As explained in the Petition, claims 6, 14, and 21 of the ’695 patent are
`
`rendered obvious by the combination of Sarantos, Mendelson-1991, and Chin
`
`(Ground 1D, see Petition, 60-64), and by the combination of Ackermans and Chin
`
`(Ground 2C, see Petition, 102-106).3 The POR presents several arguments with
`
`respect to these Grounds. As explained in the sections below, these arguments fail.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s invented distinction between “thick tissue” and
`“thin tissue” devices is not supported by the evidence of record
`Patent Owner attempts to draw a bright line between pulse oximeters used in
`
`body locations having what it terms “thick” tissue (e.g., “the wrist”), and those
`
`used in locations having “thin” tissue (e.g., the “nostril”). See, e.g., POR, 16-20.
`
`The POR characterizes the pulse oximeter described in Chin as a “thin tissue
`
`device” that is so vastly different from “thick tissue” pulse oximeters (e.g., those
`
`
`3 Petition Grounds 1A-1C and 2A-2B are directed solely to claims disclaimed by
`
`Patent Owner. See Ex. 2004.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`described in Sarantos and Ackermans) that Chin’s teachings are inapplicable to
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`such devices. See id., 19-20; see also APPLE-1022, 23:2-7. This argument lacks
`
`support in—and is in fact contradicted by—the evidence of record.
`
`Patent Owner provides no evidentiary support—besides uncorroborated
`
`testimony from its expert—for this alleged dichotomy between “thin tissue” and
`
`“thick tissue” pulse oximeters. See POR, 16-20 (citing EX2001, [52]-[56]).
`
`Similarly, it relies solely on uncorroborated expert testimony to support its
`
`conclusion that pulse oximetry techniques described with respect to one tissue
`
`site—such as those described in Chin—are inapplicable to devices operating at a
`
`different tissue site—such as the wrist-worn devices described in Sarantos and
`
`Ackermans. See POR, 16-20 (citing EX2001, [52]-[56]). It is well-settled that
`
`uncorroborated expert testimony, such as Dr. Madisetti’s testimony relied on by
`
`Patent Owner, is insufficient to support arguments regarding obviousness. See TQ
`
`Delta v. Cisco Systems, 942 F. 3d 1352, 1358-1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This court's
`
`opinions have repeatedly recognized that conclusory expert testimony is
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`inadequate to support an obviousness determination on substantial evidence
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`review”).4
`
`Although the POR includes a handful of citations to Chin, Sarantos, and
`
`Ackermans in its “thick tissue” / “thin tissue” argument, the cited disclosure does
`
`not support Patent Owner’s alleged distinction between “thin tissue” and “thick
`
`tissue” devices. See POR, 16-20 (citing APPLE-1006, 1:14-21, 2:39-62, 7:13-41,
`
`8:21-29, FIGS. 5C-5E, 7B; APPLE-1014, 7:12-16; APPLE-1015, 15:43-45). In
`
`fact, neither Sarantos, nor Ackermans, nor Chin describes its pulse oximeter as
`
`applicable to only “thick” or “thin” tissue, and none of these references use the
`
`terms “thick” or “thin” when describing tissue measurement sites. See APPLE-
`
`1006, APPLE-1014, APPLE-1016.
`
`No evidence of record supports Patent Owner’s alleged distinction. In fact,
`
`Chin specifically states that its sensor “could attach to any body part,” thereby
`
`contradicting Patent Owner’s classification of Chin as directed only to “thin tissue”
`
`devices. APPLE-1006, 5:55-56. In addition, it was well-known that reflectance
`
`
`4 Patent Owner and its expert fail to even provide information on how to categorize
`
`a particular tissue site as “thick” or “thin.” See POR, 16-20; see also APPLE-
`
`1022, 19:15-20:17, 21:18-22:16 (Dr. Madisetti refusing to explain his definition of
`
`“thin” tissue).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`pulse oximeters, such as those described in Sarantos and Ackermans, “can be used
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`to measure arterial oxygen saturation at virtually any place on the human body.”
`
`See, e.g., APPLE-1021, 88; see also 91 (“Reflectance probes can be placed on
`
`virtually any place on the body where we can expect light reflection due to
`
`tissue”). This flexibility in the placement location of reflectance pulse oximeters
`
`runs counter to the alleged distinction between “thick” and “thin” pulse oximeters
`
`upon which Patent Owner bases many of its arguments. See, e.g., POR, 16-20.
`
`Patent Owner’s distinction between “thick tissue” and “thin tissue” pulse
`
`oximeters is thus unsupported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, the many
`
`arguments in the POR that rely on this theory must fail.
`
`B. Dr. Madisetti’s experimental results are not indicative of the
`performance of devices with multiple photodetectors
`Patent Owner also alleges that, contrary to Chin’s explicit disclosure, adding
`
`diffuser would “have significant detrimental consequences to the performance of a
`
`pulse oximeter.” POR, 21; contra APPLE-1006, 8:24-28 (“optical diffuser 180…
`
`causes a further spreading or mixing of light and may enhance the amount of tissue
`
`penetrated in some instances”). To support this argument, the POR cites results of
`
`an experiment in which Dr. Madisetti selected and placed two commercially-
`
`available diffusers over the emitter of a Masimo pulse oximetry sensor, and
`
`measured the amount of reflected light detected by the sensor when performing a
`
`simulated measurement of a tissue analog. See, e.g., POR, 20 (citing EX2001,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`[58]-[59]). Beyond showing the feasibility and predictability of the proposed prior
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`art combinations (by combining an optical diffuser with a wrist-worn reflectance
`
`pulse oximeter), Dr. Madisetti’s experiment is irrelevant to the present proceeding,
`
`because the Masimo pulse oximeter used in these experiments includes a single
`
`photodetector, as shown in the following excerpt from Dr. Madisetti’s declaration:
`
`
`
`Single-detector device used in Dr. Madisetti’s experiment.
`EX2001, Appendix p 1 (annotations in original)
`
`Conversely, the devices described in Sarantos and Ackermans, which form
`
`the basis of the two proposed combinations, both include a plurality of
`
`photodetectors, as required by the claims of the ’695 patent. See Petition, 11-17,
`
`71-75; APPLE-1001, claim 1 (reciting “a plurality of detectors”). The following
`
`annotated figures show these configurations with the multiple photodetectors
`
`annotated in green:
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1014 (Sarantos),
`Detail of FIG. 15 (annotated)
`
`APPLE-1016 (Ackermans),
`Detail of FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`See also APPLE-1015, 2 (FIG. 1 depicts a device with multiple photodetectors
`
`arranged around a central LED).
`
`Devices with multiple detectors will detect additional reflected light that will
`
`not be detected by a single detector (i.e., light that strikes the area of the device
`
`covered by the additional detector). See, e.g., APPLE-1014, 14:46-55 (explaining
`
`that using multiple photodetectors arrange around the light source can lead to more
`
`light being detected and thus “increase the signal to ambient noise ratio” of the
`
`device); APPLE-1015, 2 (“The major feature of the optical layout design is the
`
`multiple photodiode array, which….maximizes the amount of backscattered light
`
`that is detected by the sensor”). Thus, the single-detector device used in Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s experiment is fundamentally different from the devices described in the
`
`Sarantos and Ackermans combinations, and therefore the results of the experiment
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`are not indicative of the performance of the combined prior art devices of Sarantos
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`and Ackermans. Accordingly, the many arguments in the POR that rely on this
`
`theory must fail.
`
`C. Ground 1D: Claims 6, 14, and 21 are obvious over Sarantos in
`view of Mendelson-1991 and Chin
`As explained in the Petition, the Sarantos-Mendelson-1991-Chin
`
`combination renders claim 6, 14, and 21 obvious. See Petition, 60-64. The POR
`
`presents various arguments with respect to this Ground. As explained in the
`
`sections below, these arguments fail.
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to add Chin’s
`diffuser to the combined device of Sarantos and Mendelson-
`1991
`As explained in the Petition:
`
`[A] POSITA would have been motivated to
`incorporate Chin’s diffuser into the pulse oximeter of
`Sarantos and Mendelson because the diffuser will cause
`the light “to pass through more tissue, and thus more
`blood,” resulting in a stronger reflected signal at the
`detectors, which “allows it to be more easily processed by
`the oximeter electronics and software” to determine the
`measured physiological parameters.
`
`Petition, 62-63 (quoting APPLE-1006, 2:4-7, 9:64-10:7) (citing APPLE-
`
`1006, 8:25-29; APPLE-1003, [99]). Patent Owner argues that the “Sarantos
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`discloses a wrist-worn sensor applied to thick tissue, which does not suffer the
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`same thin tissue problem that Chin attempts to solve.” POR, 22, 23. But, as
`
`described above (see Section II.A, supra), Patent Owner’s distinction between
`
`“thick tissue” and “thin tissue” devices has no basis in Chin or Sarantos—neither
`
`reference describes such a distinction—or indeed in any of the evidence of record.
`
`In fact, Chin specifically states that its sensor “could attach to any body part,”
`
`thereby contradicting Patent Owner’s classification of Chin as only being
`
`concerned with a “thin tissue problem.” APPLE-1006, 5:55-56.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “the addition of a diffuser in a reflectance
`
`sensor significantly reduces the amount of light reaching the detector,” and relies
`
`only on the results of Dr. Madisetti’s single-detector experiment for support. See
`
`POR, 22-24. But, as explained above (see Section II.B, supra), the results of Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s single-detector experiment are not indicative of the performance of
`
`devices with multiple photodetectors.
`
`Thus, for at least these reasons, these arguments fail.
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success when performing the proposed modification
`The Petition states that “because a POSITA would be implementing the
`
`diffuser in a known way (specifically the way described in Chin), a POSITA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the diffuser of Chin
`
`into the pulse oximetry sensor of the Sarantos-Mendelson-1991 combination.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Petition, 62 (citing APPLE-1003, [98]; APPLE-1006, 8:20-28). Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`argues that a POSITA would have had no reasonable expectation of success in
`
`adding Chin’s diffuser to the combined device of Sarantos-Mendelson-1991
`
`because it alleges, again relying on the results of Dr. Madisetti’s single-detector
`
`experiment, that the amount of light reaching the detectors would be reduced by
`
`the addition of the diffuser. POR, 24-25. But, as explained above (see Section
`
`II.B, supra), the results of Dr. Madisetti’s single-detector experiment are not
`
`indicative of the performance of devices with multiple photodetectors, and
`
`therefore fail to support Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`Petitioner’s argument regarding reasonable expectation of success,
`
`conversely, is supported by the explicit disclosure of Chin, which, contrary to
`
`Patent Owner’s characterizations, is explicitly directed to sensors attached to “any
`
`body part.” See APPLE-1006, 5:55-56; Petition, 62 (citing APPLE-1003, [98];
`
`APPLE-1006, 8:20-28).
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments fail.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner's arguments rely on mischaracterizations of
`the prior art that ignore explicit disclosures in the
`references
`Patent Owner repeatedly mischaracterizes the prior art references in self-
`
`serving ways to attempt to undermine the combinations described in the Petition.
`
`For example, as previously discussed (see Section II.A, supra), Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`characterizes Chin as limited to a “nostril-based” sensor even though the reference
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`explicit states that its sensor “could attach to any body part.” APPLE-1006, 5:55-
`
`56.
`
`In addition, Patent Owner characterizes Sarantos as limited to configurations
`
`where the photodetectors are spaced “1 mm to 4 mm” from the central emitter.
`
`See, e.g., POR, 28, 30. But Sarantos specifically states that “implementations
`
`discussed herein may be used in products that achieve closer or farther spacing
`
`from the light source center, such as spacing closer than 1 mm or farther than 4
`
`mm.” APPLE-1014, 18:66-19:2. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`
`these dimensions assume, without support, that the addition of Chin’s diffuser
`
`would spread the light from Sarantos’ emitter to an extent that the pattern of light
`
`reaching the photodetectors would be vastly changed, thus disrupting the operation
`
`of the device. POR, 29-32. Nothing in the references or in the description of the
`
`combination in the Petition suggests that the effect of Chin’s diffuser would be so
`
`drastic. In fact, even a slight spreading of the emitted light would still “cause [the
`
`light] to pass through more tissue, and thus more blood” thereby leading to
`
`improved performance, as taught by Chin. See APPLE-1006, 2:4-9, 8:25-29.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments fail.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`D. Ground 2C: Claims 6, 14, 21 are obvious over Ackermans in view
`of Chin
`As explained in the Petition, the Ackermans-Chin combination renders
`
`claims 6, 14, and 21 obvious. See Petition, 102-106. The POR presents various
`
`arguments with respect to this Ground, many of which are nearly identical to those
`
`presented with respect to Ground 1D. As explained in the sections below, these
`
`arguments fail.
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to add Chin’s
`diffuser to Ackermans’ device
`As explained in the Petition:
`
`[A] POSITA would have been motivated to
`incorporate Chin’s diffuser into the pulse oximeter of
`Ackermans because the diffuser will cause the light “to
`pass through more tissue, and thus more blood,” resulting
`in a stronger reflected signal at the detectors, which
`“allows it to be more easily processed by the oximeter
`electronics and software” to determine the measured
`physiological parameters.
`
`Petition, 102-103 (quoting APPLE-1006, 2:4-7, 9:64-10:7) (citing APPLE-
`
`1006, 8:25-29; APPLE-1003, [99]). Patent Owner argues that the “Ackermans
`
`discloses a wrist-worn sensor applied to thick tissue,” and “a POSITA having
`
`Ackermans’ device would have no reason to look to Chin for Chin’s solutions to
`
`its thin tissue problem.” POR, 34. But, as described above (see Section II.A,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`supra), Patent Owner’s distinction between “thick tissue” and “thin tissue” devices
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`has no basis in Chin or Ackermans—neither reference describes such a
`
`distinction—or indeed in any of the evidence of record. In fact, Chin specifically
`
`states that its sensor “could attach to any body part,” thereby contradicting Patent
`
`Owner’s classification of Chin as only being concerned with a “thin tissue
`
`problem.” APPLE-1006, 5:55-56.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “the addition of a diffuser in a reflectance
`
`sensor significantly reduces the amount of light reaching the detector,” and relies
`
`only on the results of Dr. Madisetti’s single-detector experiment for support. See
`
`POR, 35. But, as explained above (see Section II.B, supra), the results of Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s single-detector experiment are not indicative of the performance of
`
`devices with multiple photodetectors.
`
`Thus, for at least these reasons, these arguments fail.
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success when performing the proposed modification
`The Petition states that “because a POSITA would be implementing the
`
`diffuser in a known way (specifically the way described in Chin), a POSITA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the diffuser of Chin
`
`into the pulse oximetry sensor of the Sarantos-Mendelson-1991 combination.”
`
`Petition, 104 (citing APPLE-1003, [162]; APPLE-1006, 8:20-28). Patent Owner
`
`argues that a POSITA would have had no reasonable expectation of success in
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`adding Chin’s diffuser to Ackerman’s device because it alleges, again relying on
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`the results of Dr. Madisetti’s single-detector experiment, that the amount of light
`
`reaching the detectors would be reduced by the addition of the diffuser. POR, 36-
`
`37. But, as explained above (see Section II.B, supra), the results of Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`single-detector experiment are not indicative of the performance of devices with
`
`multiple photodetectors, and therefore fail to support Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`Petitioner’s argument regarding reasonable expectation of success is
`
`supported by the explicit disclosure of Chin, which, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`characterizations, is directed to sensors attached to “any body part.” See APPLE-
`
`1006, 5:55-56. Thus, as described in the Petition, the diffuser from Chin’s pulse
`
`oximeter could be integrated with the pulse oximeter of Ackermans in the manner
`
`described in Chin. See Petition, 104.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments fail.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments rely on mischaracterizations of
`the prior art that ignore explicit disclosures in the
`references
`Patent Owner repeatedly mischaracterizes the prior art references in self-
`
`serving ways to attempt to undermine the combinations described in the Petition.
`
`For example, as previously discussed (see Section II.A, supra), Patent Owner
`
`characterizes Chin as limited to a “nostril-based” sensor even though the reference
`
`explicit states that its sensor “could attach to any body part.” APPLE-1006, 5:55-
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`56. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments assume, without support, that the addition
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`of Chin’s diffuser would spread the light from Ackermans’ emitter to an extent that
`
`the pattern of light reaching the photodetectors would be vastly changed, thus
`
`disrupting the operation of the device. POR, 40-42. Nothing in the references or
`
`in the Petition’s description of the combination suggests that the effect of Chin’s
`
`diffuser would be so drastic. In fact, even a slight spreading of the emitted light
`
`would still “cause [the light] to pass through more tissue, and thus more blood”
`
`thereby leading to improved performance, as taught by Chin. See APPLE-1006,
`
`2:4-9, 8:25-29.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments fail.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board should find the Challenged
`
`Claims unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Control No. IPR2020-01722)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Dan Smith/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24
`
`Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that the word count for the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response totals 3,115 words, which is less than the 5,600 allowed under 37 CFR
`
`§ 42.24.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Dan Smith/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on November 5, 2021, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response and Exhibits 1021-1022 were provided via
`
`email to the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Joseph R. Re
`Stephen W. Larson
`Jarom D. Kesler
`Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen
`Shannon H. Lam
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main St., 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Email: AppleIPR2020-1722-695@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
