`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALIVECOR, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2021-00970
`U.S. Patent No. 9,572,499
`
`___________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. IGOR EFIMOV IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Igor R Efimov, Ph.D., have been retained by AliveCor, Inc.
`
`(“AliveCor” or “Patent Owner”) to provide certain expert opinions in connection
`
`with AliveCor’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,572,499 (“the ‘499 patent”), IPR2021-00970
`
`(“the 970 Petition”) filed by Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2.
`
`I am the Alisann and Terry Collins Professor of Biomedical
`
`Engineering at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C. From
`
`January 2015 to December 2019, I served as the founding chairman of the
`
`Department of Biomedical Engineering at the George Washington University.
`
`Previously, from 2004 to 2015, I served as the Lucy & Stanley Lopata
`
`Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Washington University in
`
`Saint Louis, Missouri. I was also a Professor of Medicine, Professor of
`
`Radiology, and Professor of Cell Biology & Physiology at the Washington
`
`University School of Medicine. I also served on the faculty of the Department of
`
`Cardiology of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (1994-2000) and Department of
`
`Biomedical Engineering of Case Western Reserve University (2000-2004),
`
`Cleveland Ohio.
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received my Master of Science degree in experimental nuclear
`
`physics from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, USSR in 1986. In
`
`1992, I further received a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the Moscow Institute of
`
`Physics and Technology, after completing a doctoral study on the mechanisms of
`
`sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. I completed my postdoctoral
`
`training in 1992-1994 in the field of cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmia at
`
`the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Then, I started my
`
`independent cardiac research career in the Department of Cardiology at the
`
`Cleveland Clinic Foundation (1994-2000), where I established an NIH-funded
`
`laboratory. Cleveland Clinic has been consistently ranked #1 Cardiology program
`
`nationwide since 1994 by the U.S. News & World Report.
`
`4.
`
`For the past 21 years I have taught undergraduate and graduate
`
`courses in Biomedical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University,
`
`Washington University in St. Louis, and the George Washington University,
`
`including BME 301B Quantitative Physiology, BME 573 Applied Bioelectricity,
`
`BME 5909 Physiology of the Heart, BME 1010 Introduction to Biomedical
`
`Engineering, BME 3907 Clinical Cardiovascular Engineering, and BME 6045
`
`Cardiovascular Engineering & Technology. In these and other courses, I taught
`
`sections on engineering and physiological principles of cardiac electrophysiology,
`
`arrhythmia, and electrocardiography. Many of my trainees are currently working
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`at leading national medical device companies such as Medtronic, St. Jude
`
`Medical, Philips Medical, and Boston Scientific, developing novel cardiac
`
`antiarrhythmic therapy and diagnostics devices.
`
`5.
`
`I also mentored over 30 clinical fellows and postdoctoral research
`
`fellows, many of whom are currently professors, cardiologists, cardiac surgeons,
`
`and clinical engineers throughout the national and world Universities and
`
`hospitals, including Harvard University, MA; University of California, CA; Ohio
`
`State University, OH; University of Wisconsin, WI; University of Fukuoka,
`
`Japan; University of Bordeaux, France; University of Brno, Czech Republic;
`
`Imperial College London, U.K; etc.
`
`6.
`
`I have published a book in 2009 on cardiac bioelectric diagnostics
`
`and therapy (Efimov I.R., Kroll, M.W., Tchou, P.J., Eds., Cardiac Bioelectric
`
`Therapy: Mechanisms and Practical Implications, Springer, 2009. ISBN 978-0-
`
`387-79402-0), and I have just published a second updated edition of this book in
`
`2021 (Efimov I.R., Ng F.S., Laughner J.I., Eds., Cardiac Bioelectric Therapy:
`
`Mechanisms and Practical Implications, Springer, 2nd Edition. 2021. ISBN 978-
`
`3-030-63354-7).
`
`7. Most of my 260+ peer-reviewed publications focus on the
`
`physiological mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmias, its diagnostics and therapy. In
`
`collaboration with Professor John A. Rogers, we have developed novel
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`implantable, interventional, and wearable electronics platform for monitoring
`
`cardiac electrophysiology, diagnosis of heart rhythm disorders due to brady- and
`
`tachyarrhythmias and antiarrhythmia therapy. Several high impact publications
`
`have been published on that subject recently in leading scientific journals of
`
`Nature family. For example, our recent paper on novel bioresorbable electronics
`
`platform (Choi YS, Yin RT, Pfenniger A, Koo H, Avila R, Lee KB, Chen SW,
`
`Lee G, Li G, Qiao Y, Murillo-Berlioz A, Kiss A, Han S, Lee SM, Li C, Xie Z,
`
`Chen YY, Burrell A, Geist B, Jeong H, Kim J, Yoon HJ, Banks A, Kang SK,
`
`Zhang ZJ, Haney CR, Sahakian AV, Johnson D, Efimova T, Huang Y, Trachiotis
`
`GD, Knight BP, Arora RK, Efimov IR, Rogers JA. Fully implantable and
`
`bioresorbable cardiac pacemakers without leads or batteries. Nature
`
`Biotechnology, June 28, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00948-x.) was
`
`featured by over 150 international news outlets reaching at least 12 million
`
`listeners/viewers from 5 continents, including PBS, Guardian, and NIH Research
`
`Matters (NIH Director’s office online publication).
`
`8.
`
`I have also delivered 360+ invited lectures at prestigious professional
`
`conferences and leading Universities worldwide, most of them on cardiac
`
`arrhythmias and therapy.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently serving 5-year term as the Editor-in Chief of
`
`Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, journal of Biomedical Engineering
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Society published by SpringerNature. I am responsible for review and publishing
`
`decision making of approximately 200-250 manuscripts submitted for publication,
`
`including cardiac electrophysiology, signal processing, arrhythmia therapy, etc. I
`
`have served on the editorial board of the American Journal of Physiology: Heart
`
`and Circulatory Physiology and Heart Rhythm Journal, where I manage and make
`
`decisions on manuscripts related to cardiac electrophysiology and electrotherapy.
`
`I have served or currently am serving on many editorial boards of leading cardiac
`
`journals, where I review papers on cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmia.
`
`These journals include Circulation Research, Heart Rhythm, Journal of Cardiac
`
`Electrophysiology, Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, American
`
`Journal of Physiology, IEEE Transactions in Biomedical Engineering,
`
`Experimental Physiology, etc.
`
`10.
`
`I have served on numerous national and international expert panels,
`
`which consider grant applications from the leading experts in the field of cardiac
`
`electrophysiology and defibrillation, from many countries, including the USA,
`
`Canada, the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia,
`
`Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, etc. From 2009-2013, I served
`
`as a chartered member of the leading US panel at the National Institutes of Health,
`
`the Electrical Signaling, Transporters and Arrhythmia (ESTA) Study section,
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`which is the major source of funding to leading US cardiac arrhythmia
`
`investigators.
`
`11. My research on heart rhythm disorders has been funded by the
`
`National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and
`
`other federal and private foundations without interruptions since 1998, with an
`
`average of approximately $1M per year during recent years. I am also funded by
`
`the American Heart Association, National Science Foundation, Leducq
`
`Foundation, etc.
`
`12.
`
`I have served on many international panels that consider policy,
`
`research, and funding decisions in the field of cardiac electrophysiology and
`
`therapy in numerous countries from most continents. Recently, I served on The
`
`Expert Panel on the Medical and Physiological Impacts of Conducted Energy
`
`Weapons of the Council of Canadian Academies.
`
`13.
`
`I have been designing medical devices, for over 25 years. With the
`
`support of NIH funding, I have invented a method for low-voltage defibrillation of
`
`cardiac arrhythmias by effectively unpinning anatomical reentry (U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,175,702), a method for cardiac pacing using the inferior nodal extension (US
`
`Patent US No 8,391,995 B2), and a method and device for low-energy termination
`
`of atrial tachyarrhythmias (US Patent No US 8,509,889 B2). I founded Cardialen,
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. to develop clinical defibrillator based on this method, which received over
`
`$30M in venture and NIH funding.
`
`14.
`
`In recognition of my research and innovation in the field of heart
`
`rhythm disorders, I have been elected to the United States National Academy of
`
`Inventors in 2019; and I have received 2021 Distinguished Scientist Award from
`
`the leading clinical cardiac electrophysiology professional association - Heart
`
`Rhythm Society.
`
`15. My professional history is further detailed in the provided curriculum
`
`vita (see Appendix).
`
`16. My conclusions in this report and my compensation do not depend on
`
`the outcome of the case. My hourly rate is $500/hour for report preparation and
`
`$550 for testimony in deposition/trial/arbitration.
`
`17.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered the claims and
`
`specifications for the ‘499 patent as well as the claims and specifications for U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 10,593,731 (“the ‘731 patent”), and 10,638,941 (“the ‘941 patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the AliveCor Patents”) from the vantage point of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I have also reviewed the 970 Petition, the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Bernard R. Chaitman filed in support of the 970 Petition, and all exhibits cited
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I reserve the right to modify or supplement my Declaration or the
`
`bases for my opinions in light of any additional documents, depositions and other
`
`testimony, or other evidence that may become available to the extent the 970
`
`Petition progresses. I also may be asked to respond to any declarations or
`
`testimony submitted on behalf of Petitioner concerning the patents-in-suit, state of
`
`the art or other matters, as well as any rulings of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board related to the 970 Petition, and reserve the right to do so.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the claims should be construed from the standpoint
`
`of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the invention
`
`date of the asserted patent. I understand that the following factors are relevant to
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art: (a) type of problems encountered
`
`in the art, (b) prior art solutions to those problems, (c) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, (d) sophistication of the technology, and (e) educational
`
`level and/or experience of active workers in the field.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define its scope, and the
`
`construction of claim terms is a question of law. I also understand that claim
`
`construction is a process that begins with the claims of the patent that define the
`
`invention. The claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`
`specification and prosecution history. In determining the proper construction of
`
`the claims, courts apply a hierarchy of intrinsic record: (1) the claim language, (2)
`
`the specification, and (3) the prosecution history. It is my understanding that
`
`extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,
`
`can be used if claim terms remain ambiguous but extrinsic evidence cannot be
`
`used to contradict the intrinsic evidence.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the written description of the invention in the patent
`
`specification is of paramount importance in construing the claims. The
`
`specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term and is
`
`usually dispositive. While the specification is a guide when construing claims,
`
`specific embodiments should not be read into claims.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that an inventor may act as his or her own lexicographer
`
`and provide definitions for terms used in a patent. I also understand that when the
`
`specification shows that the inventors gave a special definition to a claim term that
`
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, that definition controls the
`
`meaning of the term.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claim construction should give meaning to all of
`
`the terms in the claim. Constructions that render a claim term(s) superfluous are
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`generally rejected. Each claim term is also presumed to have a distinct meaning
`
`and scope.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that an element in a claim for a combination may be
`
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function (“means plus
`
`function”) without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or
`
`acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that there is a rebuttable presumption afforded the
`
`patent drafter that claim language is not “means plus function” if it does not
`
`include the word “means.” I also understand that the presumption can be
`
`overcome only if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite
`
`sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function. In such cases, a substitute term acts a
`
`generic placeholder (or so-called “nonce” word) for the term “means.” I
`
`understand that the standard is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the claim language to refer to structure, assessed in light of the
`
`presumption that flows from the drafter's choice not to employ the word “means.”
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated only if each and every single
`
`element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described,
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`in a single prior art reference.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that inherency may not be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities, and the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`circumstances is not sufficient for anticipation.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that to serve as an anticipating reference, the reference
`
`must fully enable that which it is asserted to anticipate. I further understand that a
`
`claimed invention cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the allegedly
`
`anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled. I further understand that
`
`enablement requires that the prior art reference must teach one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to make or carry out the claimed invention without undue additional
`
`experimentation.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that determination of whether the requisite amount of
`
`experimentation is undue may include consideration of several factors (known as
`
`the Wands factors). Those factors include: (1) the quantity of experimentation
`
`necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or
`
`absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the
`
`prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or
`
`unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that neither Apple nor Dr. Chaitman are
`
`asserting any anticipation invalidity positions against the ‘499 patent in the 970
`
`Petition.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`31.
`
`I understand that an analysis of obviousness must include an analysis
`
`of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if any.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that there must be some articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. I
`
`further understand that the patent challenger must demonstrate a “reasonable
`
`expectation of success” of combining the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that a patent can be obvious in light of a single prior
`
`art reference if it would have been obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the
`
`patented invention.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that in evaluating prior art, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) must avoid the trap of hindsight. I further understand that
`
`even an obvious solution does not render an invention obvious if the problem
`
`solved was previously unknown.
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 13
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I further understand that a reference that teaches away cannot serve
`
`as a basis for obviousness. I further understand that a reference may be said to
`
`teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
`
`36.
`
`I further understand that evidence of “secondary considerations”
`
`when present must always be considered in a determination of obviousness. I
`
`understand that these objective considerations, when considered with the balance
`
`of the obviousness evidence in the record, guard as a check against hindsight bias.
`
`IV. THE ‘499 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background
`
`37.
`
`The ‘499 Patent explains that cardiovascular diseases are considered
`
`to be one of the leading causes of death in the world. Ex. 1001 at 1:25-30. One
`
`common cardiac condition identified in the ‘499 Patent is arrhythmia, which
`
`occurs when the electrical activity of the heart is irregular and/or is faster or
`
`slower than normal, known as tachyarrhythmia and bradyarrhythmia, respectively.
`
`Id. at 1:31-35.
`
`38.
`
`The ‘499 Patent explains that while certain forms of arrhythmia are
`
`not considered life-threatening, some are known to cause cardiac arrest that could
`
`lead to cardiac death. Id.
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 14
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The ‘499 Patent also identifies atrial fibrillation as one of the most
`
`common forms of cardiac arrhythmia—which occurs when electrical conduction
`
`through the atria of the heart is irregular, fast, and disorganized, leading to
`
`irregular activation of ventricles. Id. at 1:36-40. Atrial fibrillation is associated
`
`with atrial blood clot formation, which can lead to clot migration and stroke. Id. at
`
`40-42.
`
`40. A photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor can, among other things,
`
`monitor heart rate using an optical detection of blood volume changes in the
`
`microvascular bed of the tissue. The PPG sensor system consists of a light
`
`source(s) and a detector(s). PPG sensor(s) monitor changes in the light intensity of
`
`light reflected from or transmitted through the tissue. The changes in light
`
`intensity are associated with small variations in blood perfusion of the tissue,
`
`caused by cardiac contractions, and provide information on the cardiovascular
`
`system.
`
`41.
`
`PPG monitoring is reliable in measurements of oxygen saturation and
`
`average heart rate, but historically has been found to be less reliable in detecting
`
`arrhythmias, especially atrial arrhythmias. Compared to the traditional ECG data,
`
`heart rate estimation is more challenging based on the PPG-signal.
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 15
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2002.
`
`42. As shown in the image above, motion artifacts, which are caused by
`
`the user’s physical activity (e.g. arm movement), can create noisy signals resulting
`
`in significantly reduced PPG-signal quality. Ex. 2002 at Figure 5. As a result, it is
`
`difficult to obtain a clean signal and extract HR from contaminated PPG.
`
`Therefore, increasing the accuracy and robustness of PPG-based heart rate
`
`estimation remains at the forefront of research and development in this area even
`
`to this day. See Ex 2003.
`
`43.
`
`The ‘499 Patent explains the state of the art in arrhythmia detection,
`
`the limitations in known techniques and equipment, and the need for the
`
`inventors’ improvement in detection techniques and equipment. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-
`
`2:4.
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`V. THE ‘499 PATENT
`
`44. The ’499 Patent teaches systems and methods that allow for an
`
`increased efficacy and convenience of heart monitoring for arrhythmias like atrial
`
`fibrillation. Ex. 1001 at 2:8-29. The ’499 Patent generally relates to methods and
`
`devices AliveCor invented that enable a user to wear sensors that monitor the
`
`heart and allow the user to record an ECG. Id. at 2:30-55, 10:1-18, 23:12-26,
`
`24:58-25:4. The ’499 Patent teaches sending the sensor data to a smartphone or a
`
`smartwatch in order to determine whether a heart arrhythmia is occurring. Id.
`
`45. The ‘499 Patent teaches that “when a measured heart rate increases
`
`rapidly without a corresponding increase in activity monitored by, for example, an
`
`accelerometer” found on a mobile device, then an “advisory condition” is
`
`generated for recording an ECG reading on the device. Ex. 1001 at 25:17-22. As
`
`the ‘499 Patent states, “[b]y comparing measured heart rate changes with
`
`measured activity changes, the presently disclosed software or ‘app’ minimizes
`
`false alarms” that would otherwise occur in prior art methods sensing only heart
`
`rate. Id. at 25:22-25. The ECG sensors on the device include “an electrode
`
`assembly configured to sense heart-related signals upon contact with a user’s skin,
`
`and to convert the heart-related signals to an ECG electric signal.” Id. at 25:28-32.
`
`46. The claims of the ‘499 Patent recite specific and novel
`
`implementations of apparatuses and methods used for detecting possible
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`intermittent arrhythmias that address the limitations in the prior art including the
`
`requirement that the users be made aware of the potentially life-threatening
`
`arrhythmia and have ready access to specialized diagnostic equipment in a clinical
`
`setting.
`
`47. The claimed inventions thus offer a uniquely convenient heart
`
`monitoring apparatus and methods that leverages wearability, specialized sensors,
`
`and machine learning to generate more accessible and effective detection of
`
`potentially dangerous arrhythmia conditions.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`48.
`
`I disagree with Apple and Dr. Chaitman’s assertion that a Person of
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) would only need “a combination of
`
`Bachelor’s Degree (or a similar Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an
`
`academic area emphasizing health science, or a related field, and two or more
`
`years of work experience with cardiac monitoring technologies (e.g., a
`
`cardiologist).” Petition at 8.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, it is insufficient that a POSITA in the field of the ‘499
`
`Patent be defined in the context of the general field of “health science.”
`
`50. For example, the Summary of the Invention explains that the
`
`invention includes “devices, systems, and methods for managing health and
`
`disease such as cardiac diseases, including arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation” and
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`the use of “[a] portable computing device” that is specifically configured to
`
`“measure one or more physiological signals of a user.” Ex. 1001 at 2:8-10, 30-32.
`
`51. A POSITA would need to understand the specific aspects of the
`
`design, configuration, and operation of these devices requires, which specialized
`
`engineering skills that a cardiologist may or may not possess in his or her
`
`background.
`
`52. As a result, a degree in biomedical or electrical engineering (or an
`
`equivalent), and/or extensive experience working with arrhythmia detection tools
`
`would also be necessary.
`
`53. Dr. Chaitman only states in his declaration that his background
`
`includes a “Bachelor of Science” degree, without specifying the field. Ex. 1003 at
`
`5. Dr. Chaitman’s described experience is also limited to “the use of the rest and
`
`exercise ECG as a diagnostic instrument” and “matters related to ECG analysis
`
`and the use of ECG analysis as a diagnostic and prognostic tool.” Id. at 6-7
`
`(emphases added).
`
`54. Dr. Chaitman does not state that he has any background involving the
`
`specialized engineering skills necessary for the design, configuration, and
`
`operation of portable computing devices that are the subject of the ‘499 patent.
`
`55.
`
`I believe that Dr. Chaitman’s limited experience in the relevant field
`
`leads to several misplaced assumptions in his declaration concerning the
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 19
`
`
`
`limitations of PPG signal processing technology, what a POSITA would
`
`understand to exist in the field prior to the filing of the ‘499 Patent, and the extent
`
`to which a POSITA would be motivated to combine the asserted prior art
`
`references without the use of hindsight derived from the disclosures of the ‘499
`
`Patent itself.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`PCT Patent Publication WO2012/140559 (“Shmueli”)
`
`56.
`
`Shmueli is titled “Pulse Oximetry Measurement Triggering ECG
`
`Measurement.” Ex. 1004 at 1.
`
`57.
`
`The Abstract states the disclosed invention is a “method and a system
`
`for triggering the measurement of electrocardiogram (ECG) signal of a user” by
`
`“continuously measuring SpO2 at the wrist of the user, detecting an irregular heart
`
`condition from the SpO2 measurement, notifying the user to perform an ECG
`
`measurement, and initiating the ECG measurement at least partially at the wrist.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at 1.
`
`58.
`
`Shmueli explains that the problem it is seeking to solve is that the
`
`prior art “does not consider a requirement to enable a patient to perform ECG
`
`measurement as soon as an irregular heart activity develops and without requiring
`
`the ECG to be constantly wired to the patient.” Ex. 1004 at 9. Shmueli states that
`
`this problem is addressed “by providing a combined oximetry and
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`electrocardiogram measuring system and a method in which the oximetry
`
`measurement is performed continuously and/or repeatedly, and the ECG
`
`measurement is triggered upon detection of an intermittent irregular heart-related
`
`event.” Id.
`
`B. U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0275840 (“Osorio”)
`
`59. Osorio is titled “Pathological State Detection Using Dynamically
`
`Determined Body Data Variability Range Values.” The Abstract states that the
`
`invention disclosed is directed to detecting a “pathological body state of a patient”
`
`by determining when a body data variability value, or “BDV,” is outside of a
`
`“value range.” Ex. 1005 at Abstract.
`
`60. Osorio’s summary of the field of the invention specifies that it
`
`“relates to medical device systems and methods capable of detecting a
`
`pathological body state of a patient, which may include epileptic seizures, and
`
`responding to the same.” Ex. 1005 at [0002]. Osorio also repeatedly refers to the
`
`“pathological state” as an epileptic seizure (a neurological condition), not
`
`arrhythmia. Id. at [0037], [0045], [0046], [0056], [0058], [0066]-[0068], [0073],
`
`[0083], [0090], [0096].
`
`61. Osorio discloses a “medical device system 100” that includes “a
`
`medical device 200, activity sensor(s) 212, lead(s) 211 coupling the activity
`
`sensor(s) 212 to the medical device 200, body signal sensors 282 and body signal
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 21
`
`
`
`leads 281 coupling body signal sensors 282 to medical device 200.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`[0033].
`
`62. Osorio explains that the system “may be fully or partially implanted”
`
`in a patient. Id.
`
`63. A schematic representation of the “medical device system” is
`
`provided in Figure 1 (reproduced below) showing the kinetic sensor(s) and body
`
`signal sensor(s) attached by leads to the medical device that contains various
`
`modules and units:
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 22
`
`
`
`C.
`
`A Patient-Adaptable ECG Beat Classifier Using A Mixture of
`Experts Approach, Hu, et al. (“Hu-1997”)
`
`64.
`
`The Hu-1997 Abstract explains that the authors were developing a
`
`“customized electrocardiagram (ECG) beat classifier.” Ex. 1049 at 1.
`
`65. Hu-1997 focuses on the classification of beat morphologies into four
`
`separate beat types: N(n): NORMAL BEATS, V(v): PREMATURE
`
`VENTRICULAR CONTRACTIONS, F(f): FUSION BEATS, Q(q):
`
`UNCLASSIFIABLE BEATS. Id. at 6-7.
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 23
`
`
`
`VIII. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT
`COMBINE THE OSORIO AND SHMUELI REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Apple fails to show why a POSITA would select Shmueli and
`Osorio and combine them
`
`66. A POSITA reading Shmueli and Osorio would understand that the
`
`references are directed to different base level concepts, and neither reference
`
`discloses arrhythmia detection.
`
`67. With respect to Shmueli, the reference does not once mention
`
`arrhythmia, and is instead focused on methods and devices for detecting an
`
`undefined “irregular heart condition,” the meaning of which one can only
`
`speculate as numerous conditions can be considered heart irregularities: normal
`
`autonomic nervous system control, autonomic dysfunction, heart failure, ischemia,
`
`myocardial infarction, heart block, etc. There is no attempt by Shmueli to define
`
`“irregular heart condition” with any specificity in the reference, and I do not agree
`
`with Apple’s assumption that a POSITA would automatically assume that the
`
`term refers to arrhythmia in general, and to atrial fibrillation in particular.
`
`68. Osorio is directed to the use of a “body data variability” metric to
`
`inform the detection of a “pathological state”—which Osorio repeatedly makes
`
`clear refers to seizures. See Ex. 1005 at [0037], [0045], [0046], [0056], [0058],
`
`[0066]-[0068], [0073], [0083], [0090], [0096].
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`69. A POSITA would therefore not look to either Shmueli or Osorio,
`
`alone or in combination, to solve the problem of detecting potential
`
`tachyarrhythmia using the combination of sensors disclosed in the ‘499 Patent.
`
`70. Shmueli is also entirely silent as to a user’s activity level, and as a
`
`result does not disclose sensing a user’s activity level and comparing the user’s
`
`activity level to a heart rate variability. Nor does Shmueli disclose determining
`
`heart rate variability.
`
`71. Apple’s argument that a POSITA would combine Shmueli with
`
`Osorio assumes that a POSITA would already know that activity measurements
`
`were required to avoid “false diagnoses” of arrhythmia, and then would
`
`automatically look to Osorio for the necessary disclosures of activity level
`
`monitoring. However, the purpose of Osorio’s activity level monitoring is “to
`
`determine if and when a patient is in a seizure state that manifests with increases
`
`in heart rate.” Ex. 1005 at [0029]. In my opinion, Apple fails to offer any
`
`legitimate explanation as to why a POSITA would have selected Osorio, a
`
`reference directed to the detection of a neurological condition like epileptic
`
`seizures, to be added to Shmueli, a reference directed to the detection of vague
`
`and undisclosed cardiac conditions without mentioning arrhythmia even once, in
`
`order to accurately detect arrhythmia.
`
`
`
`AliveCor Ex. 2001 - Page 25
`
`
`
`72.
`
`I also disagree with Apple’s assertion that combining Osorio with
`
`Shmueli would be “consistent with Shmueli’s primary focus on enabling a
`
`convenient yet comfortable device to measure ECG only upon detection of an
`
`irregular heart condition using PPG data” as Apple asserts. Petition at 19. Osorio
`
`describes a “medical device system” that “may be fully or partially implanted” in
`
`a patient, including placing sensors “in one or more structures (