`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00193
`Patent 10,299,708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNERS’ RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. GROUNDS 1A-1F RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........ 2
`
`A.
`
`Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of Aizawa ........... 2
`
`1. Masimo ignores the well-known principle of reversibility ........ 4
`
`2. Masimo ignores the behavior of scattered light in a reflectance-
`
`type pulse sensor ......................................................................... 9
`
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Aizawa in view of
`
`Ohsaki to include a convex protrusion ................................................ 15
`
`III. GROUNDS 2A-2B RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ... 19
`
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Mendelson-1988
`
`with Inokawa to add a lens .................................................................. 19
`
`B. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa includes the claimed cover ...... 20
`
`C. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa renders obvious a “cylindrical
`
`housing” ............................................................................................... 23
`
`D. Nishikawa is a supporting reference ................................................... 24
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`APPLE-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,299,708 to Poeze, et al. (“the ’708 patent”)
`APPLE-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’708 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`APPLE-1003 Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny
`APPLE-1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny
`APPLE-1005 Masimo Corporation, et al. v. Apple Inc., Complaint, Civil Action
`No. 8:20-cv-00048 (C.D. Cal.)
`APPLE-1006 U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0188210 (“Aizawa”)
`APPLE-1007
`JP 2006-296564 (“Inokawa”)
`APPLE-1008 Certified English Translation of Inokawa and Translator’s
`Declaration
`APPLE-1009 U.S. Pat. No. 7,088,040 (“Ducharme”)
`APPLE-1010 U.S. Pat. No. 8,177,720 (“Nanba”)
`APPLE-1011 RESERVED
`APPLE-1012 U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,304 (“Reisman”)
`APPLE-1013 U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0220738 (“Nissila”)
`APPLE-1014 U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0056243 (“Ohsaki”)
`APPLE-1015 Design and Evaluation of a New Reflectance Pulse Oximeter
`Sensor,” Y. Mendelson, et al.; Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
`Biomedical Engineering Program, Worcester, MA 01609;
`Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation,
`vol. 22, No. 4, 1988; pp. 167-173 (“Mendelson-1988”)
`“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”)
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`APPLE-1017 Excerpt from Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`APPLE-1018
`“Acrylic: Strong, stiff, clear plastic available in a variety of
`brilliant colors,” available at
`https://www.curbellplastics.com/Research-
`Solutions/Materials/Acrylic
`APPLE-1019 U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 (“Beyer”)
`APPLE-1020 U.S. Pat. No. 7,092,735 (“Osann, Jr.”)
`APPLE-1021 U.S. Pat. No. 6,415,166 (“Van Hoy”)
`APPLE-1022 QuickSpecs; HP iPAQ Pocket PC h4150 Series
`APPLE-1023 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0145255 (“Nishikawa”)
`APPLE-1024
`“Measurement Site and Photodetector Size Considerations in
`Optimizing Power Consumption of a Wearable Reflectance Pulse
`Oximeter,” Y. Mendelson, et al.; Proceedings of the 25th IEEE
`EMBS Annual International Conference, 2003; pp. 3016-3019
`(“Mendelson-2003”)
`APPLE-1025 U.S. Pat. No. 6,801,799 (“Mendelson-’799”)
`APPLE-1026 Declaration of Jacob Munford
`APPLE-1027 U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0093786 (“Goldsmith”)
`APPLE-1028 U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0138568 (“Lo”)
`APPLE-1029 Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, “Universal asynchronous
`receiver-transmitter” at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_asynchronous_receiver-
`transmitter, last accessed 08/27/2020
`APPLE-1030 U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0242958 to Al-Ali et al. (“Al-Ali”)
`APPLE-1031 RESERVED
`APPLE-1032 RESERVED
`APPLE-1033 RESERVED
`APPLE-1034 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Vijay Madisetti in IPR2020-01520,
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539, Day 1 (August 1, 2021)
`APPLE-1035 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Vijay Madisetti in IPR2020-01520,
`IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539, Day 2 (August 2, 2021)
`APPLE-1036 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Vijay Madisetti in IPR2020-01536,
`IPR2020-01538 (August 3, 2021)
`APPLE-1037 Masimo Corporation, et al. v. Apple Inc., Second Amended
`Complaint, Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-00048 (C.D. Cal.)
`(Redacted)
`APPLE-1038 U.S. Patent No. 8,577,431 to Lamego et al. (“CIP Patent”)
`APPLE-1039 Order Re Motion to Stay in Masimo Corporation et al. v. Apple
`Inc., Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE, October 13, 2020
`Second Declaration of Jacob Robert Munford
`APPLE-1040
`APPLE-1041 Declaration of Gordon MacPherson: Mendelson-2003
`APPLE-1042 Declaration of Gordon MacPherson: Mendelson-2006
`APPLE-1043 RESERVED
`APPLE-1044
`“Refractive Indices of Human Skin Tissues at Eight Wavelengths
`and Estimated Dispersion Relations between 300 and 1600 nm,”
`H. Ding, et al.; Phys. Med. Biol. 51 (2006); pp. 1479-1489
`“Analysis of the Dispersion of Optical Plastic Materials,” S.
`Kasarova, et al.; Optical Materials 29 (2007); pp. 1481-1490
`“Noninvasive Pulse Oximetry Utilizing Skin Reflectance
`Photoplethysmography,” Y. Mendelson, et al.; IEEE Trans-
`actions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 10, October
`1988; pp. 798-805 (“Mendelson-IEEE-1988”)
`Second Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny
`APPLE-1047
`APPLE-1048 Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny from IPR2020-01539
`APPLE-1049 Eugene Hecht, Optics (4th Ed. 2002)
`APPLE-1050 Excerpt from Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`
`APPLE-1045
`
`APPLE-1046
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`APPLE-1051 Design of Pulse Oximeters, J.G. Webster; Institution of Physics
`Publishing, 1997 (“Webster”)
`APPLE-1052 Eugene Hecht, Optics (2nd Ed. 1990)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) submits this Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(“POR”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,299,708 (“the ’708 patent”) filed by Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Masimo”).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and their expert Dr. Madisetti—who acknowledges his lack of
`
`knowledge in the most fundamental concepts of optics applicable to an “optical
`
`physiological sensor”—criticize Petitioner’s reliance on Inokawa by pursuing a
`
`technically flawed interpretation of Inokawa’s lens that violates basic principles of
`
`optics and sensor design.1 APPLE-1001, Claim 1; APPLE-1034, 89:12-19.
`
`Unable to provide rational support for their theories, Masimo resorts to
`
`mischaracterizing cherry-picked testimony from Petitioner’s expert in an attempt to
`
`obfuscate Inokawa’s plain teaching that, for pulse detectors, a “lens makes it
`
`possible to increase the light-gathering ability of the LED.” APPLE-1008, [0015].
`
`In addition, as detailed below, Masimo misunderstands the teachings of Ohsaki and
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the same for providing a second and independent reason
`
`for adding a protrusion to Aizawa.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`In its Institution Decision, the Board found that Petitioner established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims of the ’708 patent are
`
`unpatentable. As explained herein, POR arguments fail to rebut the positions
`
`advanced in the Petition. See APPLE-1047, ¶¶1-49. Accordingly, the Board
`
`should echo the reasoning and holding from its Institution Decision in its Final
`
`Written Decision, and find the Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`
`II. GROUNDS 1A-1F RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS
`As shown in the Petition and further clarified below in response to Masimo’s
`
`arguments, claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 19-22, and 24-27 are rendered obvious by the
`
`combination of Aizawa and Inokawa (Ground 1A). For additional reasons as
`
`explained in the Petition and below, those same claims are further rendered
`
`obvious by the combination of Aizawa, Inokawa, and Ohsaki (Ground 1B).
`
`Masimo has not provided additional rebuttals to Grounds 1C-1F directed to claims
`
`10, 16-18, and 27-29. POR, 39.
`
`A.
`Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of Aizawa
`Inokawa generally discloses a “lens [that] makes it possible to increase the
`
`light-gathering ability” of a reflectance-type pulse sensor, APPLE-1008, [0015],
`
`[0058], FIG. 2, and, based on this disclosure, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to incorporate “an Inokawa-like lens into the cover of Aizawa to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`increase the light collection efficiency....” Petition, 12-14; APPLE-1003, ¶¶82-87.
`
`Yet Masimo contends that Inokawa’s lens is somehow designed specifically to
`
`direct all light “to the center of the sensor” and that, as a result, it would “direct
`
`light away from the periphery-located detectors” as in Aizawa, thereby
`
`discouraging the above-noted motivation to combine. POR, 15, 20; see also
`
`APPLE-1034, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you have a convex
`
`surface...all light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or directed towards
`
`the center.”).
`
`Masimo’s misinformed understanding of Inokawa’s lens—not to mention
`
`lenses in general—is demonstrated by their description of Inokawa’s lens 27 as
`
`“focus[ing] light from LEDs...to a single detector (25) in the center” and
`
`“direct[ing] incoming light to the centrally located detector.” POR, 12.
`
`A correct understanding of Inokawa’s lens as well as of reflectance-type
`
`pulse sensors in general (like those disclosed by Aizawa, Inokawa, and Mendelson-
`
`1988) readily exposes Masimo’s flawed rationale. Indeed, a POSITA would
`
`understand that Inokawa’s lens generally improves “light concentration at pretty
`
`much all of the locations under the curvature of the lens,” as opposed to only at a
`
`single point at the center as asserted by Masimo. Ex. 2006, 164:8-16; see also
`
`APPLE-1010, FIG. 1B, 8:45-50; APPLE-1011, FIG. 2, 3:35-41; APPLE-1047,
`
`¶¶7-9. That is, a POSITA would have understood that a cover featuring a convex
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`protrusion would improve Aizawa’s signal-to-noise ratio, and consequently
`
`performance, by causing more light backscattered from tissue to strike Aizawa’s
`
`photodetectors than would have with a flat cover. APPLE-1047, ¶9; APPLE-1052,
`
`52, 86, 90; APPLE-1052, 84, 87-92, 135-141; APPLE-1046, 803-805.
`
`1. Masimo ignores the well-known principle of reversibility
`
`The well-known optical principle of reversibility dispels Masimo’s claim
`
`that “a convex cover condenses light towards the center of the sensor and away
`
`from the periphery” when applied to Aizawa. POR, 15; APPLE-1052, 87-92;
`
`APPLE-1049, 106-111; APPLE-1047, ¶10. According to this principle, “a ray
`
`going from P to S will trace the same route as one from S to P.” APPLE-1052, 92,
`
`84; APPLE-1049, 101, 110; APPLE-1036, 80:20-82:20. Importantly, the principle
`
`dictates that rays that are not completely absorbed by user tissue will propagate in
`
`a reversible manner. APPLE-1047, ¶10. In other words, every ray that completes
`
`a path through tissue from an LED to a detector would trace an identical path
`
`through that tissue in reverse, if the positions of the LED emitting the ray and the
`
`receiving detector were swapped. Id.; APPLE-1052, 92.
`
`The annotated versions of Inokawa’s FIG. 2 presented below together
`
`illustrate the principle of reversibility applied in context. As shown, Inokawa’s
`
`FIG. 2, illustrates two example ray paths from surrounding LEDs (green) to a
`
`central detector (red):
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`POR, 13; APPLE-1047, ¶10.
`
`
`
`As a consequence of the principle of reversibility, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that if the LED/detector configuration were swapped, as in Aizawa, the
`
`two example rays would travel identical paths in reverse, from a central LED (red)
`
`to surrounding detectors (green). APPLE-1047, ¶11. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that, for these rays, any condensing/directing/focusing benefit achieved
`
`by Inokawa’s cover (blue) under the original configuration would be identically
`
`achieved under the reversed configuration:
`
`POR, 13; APPLE-1047, ¶11.
`
`
`
`When factoring in additional scattering that may occur when light is
`
`reflected within human tissue, reversibility holds for each of the rays that are not
`
`completely absorbed; consequently, “if we’re concerned with the impact of the
`
`lens on the system, it’s absolutely reversible.” Ex. 2006, 209:19-21, 207:9-209:21;
`
`APPLE-1047, ¶12.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`As shown with respect to the example paths illustrated below (which include
`
`additional scattering within tissue), each of the countless photons travelling
`
`through the system must abide by Fermat’s principle. APPLE-1047, ¶¶13-18;
`
`APPLE-1052, 87-92; APPLE-1049, 106-111. Consequently, even when
`
`accounting for various/random redirections and partial absorptions, each photon
`
`traveling between a detector and an LED would take the quickest—and identical—
`
`path between those points, even if the positions of the detector and LED were
`
`swapped. APPLE-1047, ¶¶13-18; Ex. 2006, 207:9-209:21 (“one could look at any
`
`particular randomly scattered path…and the reversibility principle applies to all of
`
`the pieces [of that path] and, therefore, applies to the aggregate”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` APPLE-1047, ¶15.
`
`
`
`When confronted with this basic principle of reversibility during deposition,
`
`Dr. Madisetti refused to acknowledge it, even going so far as to express ignorance
`
`of “Fermat’s principle, whatever that is.” APPLE-1034, 89:12-19. Yet Fermat’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`principle, which states that a path taken by a light ray between two points is one
`
`that can be traveled in the least time, is one of the most fundamental concepts in
`
`optics/physics and plainly explains the principle of reversibility. APPLE-1052, 87-
`
`92; APPLE-1049, 106-111; APPLE-1047, ¶19. This core concept forms the basis
`
`of all Aizawa-based combinations and was explained by Dr. Kenny in his
`
`declaration: “[B]ecause the path of light is reversible, the light collection function
`
`of Inokawa’s lens would work the same way regardless of whether light is emitted
`
`toward the center (and detected by a centrally located photodiode) or emitted away
`
`from the center (and detected by a peripherally located photodiode).” APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶86; see also APPLE-1003, ¶55 (explaining that Aizawa would operate in
`
`the same manner even with “a centrally located detector [surrounded] by a
`
`plurality of emitters.”); APPLE-1048, ¶79 (“Indeed, Aizawa itself recognizes this
`
`reversibility, stating that while the configurations depicted include a central emitter
`
`surrounded by detectors, the ‘same effect can be obtained when…a plurality of
`
`light emitting diodes 21 are disposed around the photodetector 22.’”); APPLE-
`
`1047, ¶19.
`
`Consistent with that understanding, contrary to Masimo’s assertions and as
`
`shown below, prior art including Ohsaki and Inokawa demonstrate the use of
`
`covers/lenses featuring convex surfaces to direct light to non-centrally located
`
`detectors. APPLE-1014, FIG. 2; APPLE-1008, FIG. 3; APPLE-1047, ¶¶20-21.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1014, FIG. 2
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`In short, based at least on the principle of reversibility, a POSITA would
`
`
`
`have understood that both configurations of LEDs and detectors—i.e., with the
`
`LED at the center as in Aizawa or with the detector at the center as in Inokawa—
`
`would similarly benefit from the enhanced light-gathering ability of an Inokawa-
`
`like lens. APPLE-1047, ¶22.
`
`2. Masimo ignores the behavior of scattered light in a reflectance-
`type pulse sensor
`Because both Aizawa and Inokawa (as well as Ohsaki and Mendelson-1988)
`
`are reflectance-type pulse sensors that receive diffuse/backscattered light, its
`
`cover/lens cannot focus all incoming light toward the sensor’s center. APPLE-
`
`1047, ¶23; Ex. 2006, 163:12-164:2 (“A lens in general…doesn’t produce a single
`
`focal point”). Indeed, reflectance-type sensors work by detecting light that has
`
`been “partially reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered by the skin and other
`
`tissues and the blood before it reaches the detector.” APPLE-1051, 86. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that light that backscatters from the measurement
`
`site after diffusing through tissue reaches the active detection area from random
`
`directions and angles. APPLE-1047, ¶23; APPLE-1046, 803; APPLE-1051, 90,
`
`52.
`
`Basic laws of refraction, specifically Snell’s law, dictate this behavior of
`
`light. APPLE-1052, 84; APPLE-1049, 101; APPLE-1036, 80:20-82:20; APPLE-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`1051, 52, 86, 90; APPLE-1047, ¶24. For example, referring to Masimo’s version
`
`of Inokawa’s FIG. 2, further annotated below to show additional rays of light
`
`emitted from LED 21, it can be seen how some of the reflected/scattered light from
`
`the measurement site does not reach Inokawa’s centrally located detector:
`
`
`
`POR, 13; APPLE-1047, ¶24.
`
`Indeed, far from focusing light to the center as Masimo contends, Ohsaki’s
`
`convex cover provides a slight refracting effect, such that light rays that may have
`
`missed the detection area are instead directed toward that area. APPLE-1047,
`
`¶¶25-26. This is particularly true in configurations like Aizawa’s where light
`
`detectors are arranged symmetrically about a central light source to enable
`
`backscattered light to be detected within a circular active detection area
`
`surrounding that source. APPLE-1051, 86, 90. The slight refracting effect is a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`consequence of similar indices of refraction between human tissue and a typical
`
`cover material (e.g., acrylic). APPLE-1047, ¶26 (citing APPLE-1044, 1486;
`
`APPLE-1045, 1484).
`
`Attempting to support its argument that a convex cover focuses all incoming
`
`light at the center, Masimo relies on the ’708 Patent’s FIG. 14B:
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 14B; POR, 24; APPLE-1047, ¶27.
`
`
`
`Masimo treats this figure as an illustration of the behavior of all convex
`
`surfaces with respect to all types of light, and conclude that “a convex surface
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`condenses light away from the periphery and towards the sensor’s center.” POR,
`
`24; APPLE-1034, 127:22-128:18 (“…a POSA viewing [FIG. 14B]…would
`
`understand that light, all light, light from the measurement site is being focused
`
`towards the center”). APPLE-1047, ¶28.
`
`But FIG. 14B is not a representation of light that has been reflected from a
`
`tissue measurement site. The light rays (1420) shown in FIG. 14B are collimated
`
`(i.e., parallel to one another), and each light ray’s path is perpendicular to the
`
`detecting surface. APPLE-1047, ¶29. This is because FIG. 14B shows a
`
`transmittance-type configuration where light is “attenuated by body tissue,” not
`
`backscattered. APPLE-1001, 35:65-67; APPLE-1047, ¶30. Indeed, FIG. 14I of
`
`the ’708 patent puts FIG. 14B in proper context, showing how light from the
`
`emitters is transmitted through the entire finger/tissue before being received by the
`
`detectors on the other side:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`
`
`
`APPLE-1047, ¶30 (showing APPLE-1001, FIG.14I).
`
`By contrast, the detector(s) of reflectance type pulse detectors detect light
`
`that has been “partially reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered by the skin
`
`and other tissues and the blood before it reaches the detector.” APPLE-1051, 86.
`
`For example, a POSITA would have understood from Aizawa’s FIG. 1(a) that light
`
`that backscatters from the measurement site after diffusing through tissue reaches
`
`the circular active detection area provided by Aizawa’s detectors from various
`
`random directions and angles, as opposed to all light entering from the same
`
`direction and at the same angle as shown in FIG. 14B. APPLE-1047, ¶31; APPLE-
`
`1051, 52, 86, 90; APPLE-1046, 803-805.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`The example figure below illustrates light rays backscattered by tissue
`
`toward a convex board/lens; as consequence of this backscattering, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the backscattered light will encounter the interface
`
`provided by the convex board/lens at all locations from a wide range of angles.
`
`APPLE-1047, ¶32. This pattern of incoming light cannot be focused by a convex
`
`lens towards any single location:
`
`APPLE-1047, ¶32.
`
`
`
`To the extent Masimo contends that only some light is directed “towards the
`
`center” and away from Aizawa’s detectors in a way that discourages combination,
`
`such arguments fail. Indeed, far from focusing light to a single central point, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that Ohsaki’s cover provides a slight refracting
`
`effect, such that light rays that otherwise would have missed the active detection
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`area are instead directed toward that area. APPLE-1047, ¶33; APPLE-1051, 52;
`
`APPLE-1052, 87-92, 135-141; APPLE-1034, 60:7-61:6, 70:8-18.
`
`
`
`Masimo and Dr. Madisetti’s reliance on Petitioner’s drawings provided in
`
`the Petition filed in IPR2020-01520 (Ex. 2019) at page 39 and in the
`
`accompanying Kenny Declaration (Ex. 2020) in paragraphs 119-120 for
`
`justification of their understanding of Inokawa’s lens is similarly misplaced. POR,
`
`15-17. Far from demonstrating the false notion that a convex lens directs all light
`
`to the center, these drawings provided by Dr. Kenny are merely simplified
`
`diagrams included to illustrate, for claim 12 of the ’265 patent, one example
`
`scenario (based on just one ray and one corpuscle) where a light permeable cover
`
`can “reduce a mean path length of light traveling to the at least four detectors.”
`
`Ex. 2019, 39; Ex. 2020, ¶¶119-120; APPLE-1047, ¶34.
`
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Aizawa in view
`of Ohsaki to include a convex protrusion
`As Dr. Kenny explained at length in his first declaration, “Ohsaki teaches
`
`that adding a convex surface...can help prevent the device from slipping on the
`
`tissue of the wearer compared to using a flat cover without such protrusion” and
`
`that “a POSITA seeking to achieve improved adhesion between the detector and
`
`the skin, as expressly recognized in Aizawa, would have been motivated and
`
`readily able to modify Aizawa’s acrylic plate to have a convex shape as in
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`Ohsaki.” APPLE-1003, ¶¶125-126 (citing to APPLE-1014, [0025]; APPLE-1006,
`
`[0026], [0030]); APPLE-1047, ¶35.
`
`Masimo, rather than attempting to directly rebut Dr. Kenny’s testimony on
`
`this point, focuses on arguments that are factually flawed and legally irrelevant.
`
`Specifically, Masimo contends that Ohsaki’s “convex surface must have
`
`longitudinal directionality,” and that “Ohsaki indicates that its convex surface
`
`only prevents slipping on the backhand side (i.e., watch-side) of the user’s wrist.”
`
`POR, 37. Notably absent is how Ohsaki actually describes the benefits associated
`
`with its convex surface. APPLE-1047, ¶¶36-37.
`
`For example, Ohsaki contrasts a “convex detecting surface” from a “flat
`
`detecting surface,” and explains that “if the translucent board 8 has a flat surface,
`
`the detected pulse wave is adversely affected by the movement of the user’s wrist,”
`
`but that if “the translucent board 8 has a convex surface…variation of the amount
`
`of the reflected light…that reaches the light receiving element 7 is suppressed.”
`
`APPLE-1014, ¶[0025]; APPLE-1047, ¶37. As Dr. Kenny explains, the POSITA
`
`would have understood from such teachings of Ohsaki that the advantages of a
`
`light permeable protruding convex cover would apply regardless of any alleged
`
`longitudinal directionality of Ohsaki’s cover and regardless of where on the body
`
`such a convex cover was placed. APPLE-1047, ¶37; APPLE-1014, ¶¶[0015],
`
`[0017], [0025], FIGS. 1, 2, 4A, 4B.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`For one, Ohsaki’s specification and claim language reinforce that Ohsaki’s
`
`description is not so limited. APPLE-1047, ¶¶37-38. For example, Ohsaki
`
`explains that “the detecting element 2…may be worn on the back side of the user's
`
`forearm.” APPLE-1014, [0030], [0028]. Similarly, Ohsaki’s claim 1 states that
`
`“the detecting element is constructed to be worn on a back side of a user’s wrist or
`
`a user’s forearm.” As another example, Ohsaki’s independent claim 5 states that
`
`“the detecting element is constructed to be worn on a user’s wrist or a user’s
`
`forearm,” without even mentioning a backside of the wrist or forearm. A POSITA
`
`would have understood this language to contradict Masimo’s assertion that Ohsaki
`
`must be positioned on the backhand side of the wrist. POR, 37; APPLE-1047, ¶38.
`
`Yet, as explained above, a POSITA would have understood that Ohsaki’s benefits
`
`are provided when the sensor is placed, for example, on either side of the user’s
`
`wrist or forearm. APPLE-1014, [0025], FIGS. 4A/B; APPLE-1047, ¶39. Thus,
`
`Masimo’s arguments that are premised on Ohsaki requiring the detecting element
`
`to be worn on a back side of a user’s wrist or a user’s forearm necessarily fail.
`
`APPLE-1047, ¶38.
`
`Moreover, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
`
`secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`reference…[r]ather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references
`
`would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`413 (C.C.P.A. 1981); see also Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d
`
`1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that combination would “result
`
`[in] substantial redesign” because “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the
`
`features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
`
`the primary reference”). Indeed, Ohsaki was relied upon not for its exact cover
`
`configuration but rather for the rather obvious concept that a convex surface
`
`protruding into a user’s skin will prevent slippage, regardless of any directionality
`
`that may or may not exist with respect to such convex surface and regardless of
`
`where on the human body it is located. APPLE-1047, ¶37; APPLE-1014,
`
`¶¶[0015], [0017], [0025], FIGS. 1, 2, 4A, 4B. And adding a convex surface to
`
`Aizawa’s flat plate will serve to increase its tendency to not slip off, not take away
`
`from it, since it is well-understood that physically digging into the skin with a
`
`protrusion provides an additional adhesive effect. Id.; APPLE-1047, ¶37.
`
`Lastly, Petitioner notes that even if a convex cover were to somehow reduce
`
`signal strength due to optical effects as Masimo falsely contends, a POSITA would
`
`have nonetheless recognized—as Ohsaki itself clearly recognized—that the
`
`additional benefit of a convex protrusion in reducing slippage is worth having. See
`
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another
`
`benefit...should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`reference with the teachings of another.”); In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Incidentally, as noted in the Petition, Aizawa discloses a “housing including
`
`a protruding light permeable cover” even without the addition of a convex
`
`protrusion as per Inokawa or Ohsaki. Petition, 22-23. While Masimo contends
`
`that the identification of the claimed “housing” is being arbitrarily changed from
`
`limitation 1[b] to limitation 1[d] (see POR, 14-15), Petitioner notes that the
`
`updated drawing for element 1[d] merely reflects the fact that this element is where
`
`the light permeable cover (which is claimed as being a part of the claimed housing)
`
`was introduced for the first time in claim 1. See APPLE-1001, Claim 1.
`
`
`III. GROUNDS 2A-2B RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS
`As shown in the Petition and further clarified below in response to Masimo’s
`
`arguments, claims 1-9, 11-15, and 19-26 are rendered obvious by the combination
`
`of Mendelson-1988 and Inokawa (Ground 2A). Masimo has not provided
`
`additional rebuttals to Grounds 2B and 2C directed to claims 16-18 and 27-29.
`
`POR, 59; APPLE-1047, ¶40.
`
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Mendelson-1988
`with Inokawa to add a lens
`Similar to their rebuttal of the Aizawa-based grounds, Masimo contends that
`
`(1) “Inokawa’s convex lens focused light on a centrally located detector” and (2)
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`as a result, incorporating such a lens to Mendelson-1988 would cause the “lens to
`
`direct light away from the detectors” based on Mendelson-1988’s use of centrally-
`
`located LEDs. POR, 40-44. For reasons discussed above in Section II.A, basic
`
`optical principles and a proper understanding of reflectance-type sensors as in
`
`Aizawa, Inokawa, and Mendelson-1988 would have led a POSITA to understand
`
`that adding an Inokawa-like lens to Mendelson-1988 would result in additional
`
`benefits such as enhanced light-gathering ability and improved signal-to-noise
`
`ratio. Petition, 64-67. Masimo’s characterization of Inokawa as “focusing [light]
`
`on a single central detector” runs contrary to basic principles of optics and how
`
`lenses work. APPLE-1047, ¶41.
`
`B. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa includes the claimed cover
`As explained in the Petition, the Mendelson-1988-Inokawa combination
`
`provides protruded epoxy cover that acts as a lens and also covers the detectors.
`
`Petition, 74-75; APPLE-1003, ¶¶172-181; APPLE-1047, ¶42. Masimo argues,
`
`however, that “the ’708 Patent distinguishes a resin on a surface from a cover” and,
`
`as a result, the modified Mendelson-1988 device lacks a cover. POR, 45-46.
`
`Masimo further argues that the convex cover in the contemplated combination is
`
`somehow not a cover because “it is part of an undifferentiated mass of material.”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00193
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0009IP1
`As an initial matter, there is nothing in the specification or the prosecution
`
`history that would lead a POSITA to conclude that “cover” should be interpreted
`
`based on anything other than its plain meaning. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entertainment America LLC, 669 F. 3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2012)
`
`(holding that terms should be given their ordinary/customary meaning unless
`
`“applicant has clearly disavowed claim scope or has acted as its own
`
`lexicographer”). And the plain meaning is clear: a cover is merely “something that
`
`protects, shelters, or guards.” APPLE-1050. Both instances of the “light
`
`permeable cover” as identified in the Petition are clearly covers that serve to
`
`protect. Petition, 74-75; APPLE-1047, ¶43.
`
`To support their narrow read of what the claimed cover entails, Masimo
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Kenny’s deposition testimony to say he agreed that “sealing
`
`resin” is somehow distinguished from a