`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Objections
`
` ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Slide 7 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Slide 8 .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Slide 9 .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Slide 10 .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Slide 12 .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Certificate of Service ................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`
`
`
`Objections
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Patent Owner (“Omni”) objects to the following demonstrative slides of
`
`Petitioner (“Apple”): Slides 7-9, 10, and 12. Specific objections are given below.
`
`A.
`
`Slide 7
`
`Objection 1: The slide’s title shows that Apple intends to rely on Lisogurski’s
`
`
`
`drive cycle modulation (“DCM”) embodiment, but the Petition never mentioned or
`
`discussed Lisogurski’s DCM embodiment for any limitation (including the “pulse
`
`rate” limitation), so this slide should be excluded.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Objection 2: In the first box on the slide, Apple highlights “drive cycle
`
`modulation” and cites “Ex. 1011 (Lisogurksi) [sic] at 34:10-13,” but the Petition
`
`never cited or relied on “34:10-13” and the citation to just “Reply at 4, 5” confirms
`
`that Apple is improperly citing to an embodiment of Lisogurski not relied on in the
`
`Petition, so this box should be excluded.
`
`Objection 3: In the second box on the slide, Apple cites “Ex. 1011
`
`(Lisogurksi) [sic] at 35:10-13,” but the Petition never cited or relied on “35:10-13”
`
`and the citation to just “Reply at 5, 15” confirms that Apple is improperly citing to
`
`an embodiment of Lisogurski not relied on in the Petition, so this box should be
`
`excluded.
`
`Objection 4: The slide reproduces Lisogurski’s “Fig. 2A,” which the Petition
`
`discusses and reproduces with respect to other claim limitations (e.g., Pet. at 54-55)
`
`but not the “pulse rate” limitation and Apple adds annotations (which do not appear
`
`anywhere in the Petition or Reply) that refer to DCM, an embodiment not mentioned,
`
`discussed, or relied on in the Petition so this Figure should be excluded.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`B.
`
`Slide 8
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Objection 1: The slide’s title shows that Apple intends to rely on Lisogurski’s
`
`
`
`drive cycle modulation (“DCM”) embodiment, but the Petition never mentioned or
`
`discussed Lisogurski’s DCM embodiment for any limitation (including the “pulse
`
`rate” limitation), so this slide should be excluded.
`
`Objection 2: In the first box on the slide, Apple highlights “drive cycle
`
`modulation” and cites “Ex. 1011 (Lisogurksi) [sic] at 34:10-13,” but the Petition
`
`never cited or relied on “34:10-13” and the absence of a citation to the Petition
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`confirms that Apple is improperly citing to an embodiment of Lisogurski not relied
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`on in the Petition, so this box should be excluded.
`
`Objection 3: In the second box on the slide, Apple cites “Ex. 1011
`
`(Lisogurksi) [sic] at 35:10-13,” but the Petition never cited or relied on “35:10-13”
`
`and the absence of a citation to the Petition confirms that Apple is improperly citing
`
`to an embodiment of Lisogurski not relied on in the Petition, so this box should be
`
`excluded.
`
`Objection 4: The slide reproduces Lisogurski’s “Fig. 2A,” which the Petition
`
`discusses and reproduces with respect to other claim limitations (e.g., Pet. at 54-55)
`
`but not the “pulse rate” limitation and Apple adds annotations (which do not appear
`
`anywhere in the Petition or Reply) that refer to DCM, an embodiment not mentioned,
`
`discussed, or relied on in the Petition so this Figure should be excluded.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`C.
`
`Slide 9
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Objection 1: In the first box on the slide, Apple highlights “drive cycle
`
`
`
`modulation” and cites “Ex. 1011 (Lisogurksi) [sic] at 34:10-13,” but the Petition
`
`never cited or relied on “34:10-13” and the absence of a citation to the Petition
`
`confirms that Apple is improperly citing to an embodiment of Lisogurski not relied
`
`on in the Petition, so this box should be excluded.
`
`Objection 2: The slide reproduces Lisogurski’s “Fig. 2A,” which the Petition
`
`discusses and reproduces with respect to other claim limitations (e.g., Pet. at 54-55)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`but not the “pulse rate” limitation and Apple adds annotations (which do not appear
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`anywhere in the Petition or Reply) that refer to DCM, an embodiment not mentioned,
`
`discussed, or relied on in the Petition, so this Figure should be excluded.
`
`D.
`
`Slide 10
`
`Objection 1: This slide reproduces Lisogurski’s “Fig. 2C,” but neither the
`
`
`
`Petition nor the Reply mentions, discusses, reproduces, or relies on this Figure (as
`
`confirmed by an absence to a citation to the Petition or Reply), so this slide should
`
`be excluded in its entirety
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Objection 2: Apple adds annotations (which do not appear anywhere in the
`
`Petition or Reply) that refer to DCM, an embodiment not mentioned, discussed, or
`
`relied on in the Petition, so the annotations should be excluded.
`
`E.
`
`Slide 12
`
`Objection: Apple quotes “Ex. 1003 (Anthony Decl.) at ¶166” and cites “Pet.
`
`
`
`at 48; Reply at 15” but the expert’s statement (and the citation to ¶166 in the Petition)
`
`were with respect to a different clam limitation (the “increase intensity” limitation),
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`not with respect to the “pulse rate” limitation at issue in this IPR, so this slide should
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`be excluded in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 2, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`John S. LeRoy (Reg. No. 48,158)
`John M. Halan (Reg. No. 35,534)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Andrew B. Turner (Reg. No. 63,121)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Omni MedSci, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that on May 2, 2022, a complete and entire copy of
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstratives, was served via
`electronic mail
`by
`serving
`the
`correspondence
`address
`of
`IPRnotices@sidley.com, which delivers to the following lead and back-up counsel:
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (Reg. No. 43,401)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 736-8914
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (Reg. No. 44,334)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Thomas A. Broughan III (Reg. No. 66,001)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Sharon Lee (pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`John S. LeRoy (Reg. No. 48,158)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Andrew B. Turner (Reg. No. 63,121)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Omni MedSci, Inc.
`
`9
`
`