Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 41
`
`Date: November 3, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`APPLE, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALIVECOR INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
` IPR2021-00970 Patent 9,572 499 B2
`IPR2021-00971 Patent 10,595,731 B2
`IPR2021-00972 Patent 10,638,941 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 14, 2022
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
`DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`JEREMY MONALDO, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson, PC
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES M. GLASS, ESQUIRE
`SEAN PAK, ESQUIRE
`Quinn Emanuel Urquehart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue
`22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`September 14, 2022, commencing at 9:00 a.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, before Walter Murphy, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Good morning. This is the final hearing in IPR
`
`2021-00970, 00971 and 00972 involving Petitioner Apple, Inc., and Patent
`Owner AliveCor, Inc. I am Judge Pollock. With me at the bench is Judge
`Jeschke, Judge Cotta is appearing by video. As set forth in the Hearing
`Order each side will have 90 minutes. Petitioner will go first followed by
`Patent Owner. Petitioner may reserve a reasonable amount of time for
`rebuttal.
`
`Before we begin with the substance of the hearing I would ask the
`parties to introduce themselves. Petitioner, would you please introduce
`yourself and your colleagues.
`
`MR. RENNER: Good morning, Your Honors, Karl Renner on behalf
`of Petitioner. I’m here joined by Jeremy Monaldo, Ryan Chowdhury and
`Jay Zhu, as well as from Apple Jessica Hannah and Garrett Sakimae, and
`Your Honors I have old school copies of the demonstratives printed. May I
`approach the bench and would you like a copy?
`
`JUDGE POLLOCK: You’re welcome to hand them out, please.
`Counsel for Patent Owner, would you please introduce yourself and your
`colleagues.
`
`MR. GLASS: Good morning, Your Honors. Jim Glass for Patent
`Owner Alivecor. With me today is my partner and counsel of record, Sean
`Pak.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Good morning. A few matters of housekeeping
`
`before we begin. First, I would like to remind the parties that the hearing is
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`open to the public and a full transcript of the hearing will be made part of the
`record.
`Second, when discussing any particular demonstrative please refer to
`it by slide or page number to help maintain a clear transcript and also to help
`us follow along with our electronic copies.
`Third, the parties may but are not obligated to discuss Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Exclude. The panel however may have questions about the bases
`of that motion. For example, at page 11 of the Patent Owner response in the
`‘971 case Patent Owner affirmatively relies on the testimony of Apple’s
`expert Dr. Stultz from the co-pending IPC litigation. Given that its Motion
`to Exclude Exhibits 1072, 73, 81 and 83 relates to Petitioner’s citation to Dr.
`Stultz’s testimony in its later filed reply brief, I would question why we
`should find that Patent Owner opened the door to the use of Dr. Stultz’s
`testimony and thus waive to seek any right to seek its exclusion. Again,
`there’s no obligation to go there. The time is your own.
`Petitioner, you have the burden of showing unpatentability of the
`challenged claims. The floor is yours. Mr. Renner, how much time would
`you like to reserve for rebuttal today?
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. Twenty minutes, please.
`Your Honors, thank you. This is Karl Renner again on behalf of Petitioner.
`May it please the Board. Today if we turn to slide 4, please we can see the
`table of contents that shows an organization of the materials that we’ve
`provided by demonstrative. Most notably here we’ve identified five issues
`that we plan to address today. I’ll be addressing the first three of those
`issues as well as introducing the Shmueli-Osorio combination and my
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`colleague, Jeremy Monaldo, will finish us out with the machine-learning and
`POSITA at the end of that part of the presentation.
`If I can move us to slide 13, please. We’ll start in with Shmueli.
`Shmueli describes a wrist worn watch or a device you can see here and in
`this wrist worn device you can see that it has on its back a PPG sensor at 13
`that is a single sensor device that maintains contact with the skin of the wrist
`on which it’s worn. It also has a difference device sensor, a second one that
`ECG electrodes are used to enable that ECG sensor and that’s got a three
`electrode configuration in Shmueli. The first of those sensors is found, or
`electrodes is found in the back as well right below the PPG sensor and it also
`maintains contact with the wrist and the skin.
`The second two of those sensor electrodes are found on the front face
`of the watch or the device and as you can see in figure 3 you can see that in
`order to activate that ECG electrode you would have to take your second
`hand and the fingers there interfacing with the electrodes on the face of this
`device such that you’d have contact with skin both on the face, those two
`sensors as well as the back and by doing so you’d have the electrode contact
`that’s necessary to enable that second device, the ECG electrode.
`Now, one might ask why are there two different sensors the Shmueli
`device has and Shmueli answers this question, in fact it’s the (indiscernible)
`goal of Schmueli is served by this. In its background, in its field, it
`describes conventional ECG-type monitoring devices and it characterizes
`those as quite cumbersome. It tells us that those involve electrodes that have
`to maintain contact with the skin during operation and when you’re trying to
`detect heart conditions that are sometimes not only irregular but intermittent,
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`you’d have to have a patient connected continuously to those electrodes.
`That’s just burdensome and it’s not easy to adopt.
`At the same time their device described in their background, the
`Holter device you’ll see referenced, and the Holter device is also an
`electrode-driven device that’s there for ECG as well. The electrodes on that
`also have to maintain, even though it’s a more portable device, contact with
`the user’s skin and as a consequence that too is quite burdensome. So
`Shmueli sets out to enable this ECG configurations or ECG measurements
`sections but without that kind of burdensome configuration and what it does
`is -- this is the introduction of the PPG sensor that you see -- it determines
`that you can put on the device a less accurate but able to screen or detect in
`the introductory sense an irregular heart condition sensor, not really the
`PPG.
`
`Now again, the PPG sensor is widely recognized as not a good
`substitute for nor as accurate as an ECG sensor so this is really there for
`screening purposes and Shmueli never talks about replacing or supplanting
`as ECG. His goal is to enable the ECG to do what the ECG has always done
`and that is to act as the gold standard in detecting heart condition
`irregularities.
`With that background in mind you’ll notice that, and if I could turn us
`please to slide 16 we’ll notice --
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Renner, a background question. At the
`bottom of slide 13 you talk about the interchangeability of all these terms. Is
`there any disagreement between the parties about that?
`MR. RENNER: I don’t believe there is, Your Honor, and it’s not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`really a -- I will characterize it this way -- it’s not really about whether these
`in fact are universally interchangeable. In the context of Shmueli however,
`as Your Honor points out, they’re interchangeable. The author of Schmueli
`tells us. When you see one of these terms you see them all, you see any one
`of them and that’s how the document’s written. I don’t believe there’s a
`contest as it relates to that and nor do I think there should be.
`So when we say -- it’s an important point -- when we see SP02 often
`recognized or referenced in the specification, what we see there also is pulse
`oximeter or oximeter or plethysmography and for that reason you can see
`that we’ve referenced 13 as PPG sensor. I’m not really sure it might be
`identified as SP02 in the specification but a person of skill reading the
`document is instructed to do the same.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Thank you.
`MR. RENNER: Slide 16, please. You’ll notice when you look at the
`Shmueli reference that it didn’t talk at all about user activity. It doesn’t talk
`about accounting for user activity and as a consequence we know that it
`doesn’t account for user activity. But we do see in Osorio, our secondary
`primary reference, that there is user activity not only recognized but
`accounted for. This figure 4A is illustrative of what Osorio does with user
`activity and you can see on this it’s a rather cumbersome I guess graph itself,
`but if you look at the bottom activity is the X axis and if you move from left
`to right as it increases.
`So on the left hand side a resting or sleeping individual might be A1.
`A4 would be someone who’s exercising vigorously and you move along this
`path, moving from exercise at low level to high level so that you can adjust
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`the range of what normal looks like and there are two lines that extend left to
`right in between which is a zone considered normal according to Osorio. It's
`a non-pathological state is what they call it. Outside of that normal green
`you would have pathological nor normal conditions and as one would expect
`when you exercise vigorously you would want to consider a higher, an
`elevated as it’s shown in A4 range to be normal relative to sleeping on the
`left. So Osorio says I’m going to adjust the scale by which I measure
`detected heart rates and whether I determine them to be normal or abnormal
`will be more accurately done if I’m able to make the scale an applied scale.
`Judge Cotta, I just want to make sure you’re okay in terms of seeing us.
`There’s a little bit of hiccup in the video for you. I can still see you but are
`you able to see?
`JUDGE COTTA: Thank you for checking. I can you perfectly
`clearly.
`MR. RENNER: Excellent. Thank you. So with Osorio you have a
`device configuration that’s proposed here that is designed to promote
`accuracy of detection in devices that are there to detect after all heart rate
`monitoring and it describes itself as pathological. If we look at slide 17,
`please we’ve got a couple of clips of paragraph 3 and paragraph 71 from
`Osorio and they show the use of words pathological body state and
`pathological state because these terms are used pretty interchangeably but
`this is the goal. This is the goal of Osorio. It says I want to determine what
`a pathological state or body state is. Is it normal? Is it non-pathological or
`is it pathological what I’m seeing in this patient or this user?
`So we find in this record a lot of debate and a lot of –
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Renner? Turning back to slide 16. Does
`Osorio directly link the use of resting or activity levels to PPG
`measurements?
`MR. RENNER: It doesn’t talk about the type of sensor that it’s going
`to be using in order to pull in a heart rate. What it does talk about is that it is
`measuring heart rate so it leaves that open and a person of ordinary skill
`would know there are a variety of ways you can measure heart rate
`including, so we believe that it leaves that to a POSITA’s well understood
`(indiscernible).
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Thank you.
`MR. RENNER: Slide 17 shows you the pathological state as the
`target and we know the pathological state has gotten a lot of attention?
`What does it mean? What is Osorio really talking about?
`We can turn, and note that there’s no real debate among the experts at
`least as to what this term means. If you look at the next slide please you can
`see testimony that was taken on deposition from each expert. Dr. Chaitman
`was asked by AliveCor what is pathological? What does it mean when
`someone says pathological to a clinician and he answers it means falls
`outside the normal.
`Dr. Efimov we thought we’d go a little more detail. We said,
`“Q Do you have an understanding of how a person of ordinary skill
`in the art in 2013 would understand the term ‘pathological state’?”
`And he replies and he uses the term interestingly irregular heart
`condition. That is exactly the term that’s in Shmueli you’ll recognize.
`We continue with Efimov. Just to be clear, just to be sure we said,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
`“Q Would a pathological state in 2013” also effectively ”to a
`person of ordinary skill include an arrhythmia?”
`And he confirms that indeed it does. So pathological state being the
`thing pursued in Osorio as the solution said that it’s pursuant is in fact
`irregular heat condition, that which was pursued by Shmueli and arrhythmia
`which we know and we’ll talk about we think the words irregular heart
`condition in context with Shmueli mean.
`Now we didn’t want to stop there. If we go to the next slide to the
`fact that in Osorio there is reference to epileptic seizures and neurological,
`that term is used both times, but these are always couched in a permissive
`sense and you can see examples of that here. We’ve not seen examples
`otherwise. In fact there’s a claim given in Osorio patent even that tells you
`that it needs to be separate of the two.
`More, if we look at the next slide, slide 20, we can see that there’s
`actually references in Osorio to arrhythmic types of conditions, tachycardia,
`bradycardia, these are things that happen and they describe them happening
`in the process of the determinations that are made. In addition, there’s
`actually reference made to arrhythmias that relates to something called an
`autonomic change. It’s also a processing step that it can take on its path to
`getting to the pathological state that it ultimately wants. It may be an
`epileptic seizure but maybe arrythmia itself.
`The combinations probably become apparent by now but we think if
`you look at slide 23 that with Osorio promoting the use of activity level
`monitoring for accuracy, that in fact Shmueli would be benefitted in its
`heartrate protection by integration of the Osorio teachings and in fact slide
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`23 we show you testimony from Dr. Chaitman to this effect. In paragraph
`151 he explains that a POSITA aware of Shmueli and Osorio would have
`considered it obvious to use Osorio’s teachings to improve the determination
`of irregular heart condition contemplated by Shmueli by accounting for
`activity level.
`He goes on to actually explain that that would serve the purpose not
`only of the integration Osorio contemplates but principally improve
`accuracy, improve reliability and reduce false detection. So there are
`advantages that come of that combination that are recognized.
`While here he also notes that HRV is another form of detection, not
`HRHRV, that Osorio contemplates. That too is beneficial, he notes, and he
`actually makes reference to a third party reference Exhibit 1039, page 52, to
`make the point that HRV can be done more robustly and with less noise.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Renner, Dr. Chaitman is a eminent
`cardiologist; right?
`MR. RENNER: Correct.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: And how is he qualified to discuss combining
`these technological (audio interference)?
`MR. RENNER: Excellent question, Your Honor. My colleague will
`address POSITA, the standard POSITA where that question also comes to
`bear, but I’ll address right now for just a moment if that’s okay. As a doctor
`we think he’s the best qualified in fact to talk about whether or not cardiac
`conditions can be monitored and how to monitor them and the fact that they
`would be monitored or there would be value to giving them a more accurate
`monitoring. He has worked, as you’ll hear, on various different experiments
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`and other research projects as well as in his role in the -- I think he’s leading
`the technology group at the university right now and has been there -- so
`he’s got not only his cardiac qualifications in terms of his doctor status, he’s
`also worked quite a bit with tools just like these and actually we think this is
`right in his wheelhouse and he’s probably the best qualified we believe to
`testify on an issue like this.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: I look forward to more. Thank you.
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. Are there other questions
`on combinability, otherwise I would turn us to arrhythmia and the debate
`that’s been had on arrhythmia, that would be at slide 25.
`Hearing none we’ll move right to slide 26, please. Regarding
`arrhythmia, a AliveCor contends that a POSITA reading Shmueli and seeing
`the words irregular heart condition, that they wouldn’t see it disclosed nor
`would they see obvious disclosure of arrhythmia that would be detecting or
`confirming arrhythmia. We think otherwise. AliveCor made this argument
`in its POPR and it made it again after the POPR. To make this easier to
`discuss we brought the evidence we brought to bear both before the
`Institution decision and after into four categories that we’ll talk about.
`Before doing so I wanted to make just one prefatory comment
`however, and that is if you look at the petition at the clip which is at the
`upper left of slide 26 here, you’ll see we actually addressed this particular
`element. It’s in the context of the overall ground that is obviousness but this
`specific element we were particular in saying that it’s understood and found
`obvious that the disclosures in Shmueli render obvious arrhythmia as the
`target and not just irregular heart condition and again four buckets of
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`evidence here to prove out that No. 1, irregular heart condition itself that
`discloses to a person of ordinary skill when in the context of Shmueli the
`term arrhythmia. That’s what they see and we’ll see that there’s, you know,
`it’s the most prolific of the irregular heart conditions is what the records can
`tell us and there’s only a few categories.
`Additionally you’re going to see the Shmueli reference arrhythmia in
`various different ways in its writing. So from this we submit that it’s not
`only disclosed but it’s also rendered obvious and the contentions otherwise
`are really just record to disclosure. We don’t believe it actually confronted
`the obviousness contention as originally set forth.
`If we move to slide 27 please, we start into that first category of
`evidence and that deal with how many members are there in the group with
`irregular heart conditions. There’s evidence on this record, and you can see
`in the upper right that there are seven different irregular heart conditions this
`record identifies, not more, just seven. There’s contentions that are there are
`more and those are because AliveCor would like you to see this as a vast
`subset ranged term, a term that has many, many different subsets. But in
`fact when you look at the evidence carefully you’ll find that they did not in
`fact prove that and we’ll see reference in their briefing to two different
`pieces of evidence in trying to rebut the idea that there are a limited number
`of items in the category irregular heart condition.
`They look at Efimov’s testimony and he offers testimony and he says
`out loud we think there are -- how does he say it? He says there are
`numerous other irregular heart conditions including for example corona
`heart disease, heart failure and various heart valve defects. This is in his
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`paragraph 69. But when he offers that testimony he’s looking at two
`exhibits that were also considered by Dr. Chaitman, the 1023 exhibit and the
`1047 exhibit and when you look into those they list no more than what he’s
`listed and all of what he’s talked about is captured in this list of seven that
`are on this slide. So we know that his testimony doesn’t establish the
`existence of some vast number.
`Now when we look at the testimony they received from Dr. Chaitman
`on the deposition, we look at the question they asked and I’ll repeat it and it
`happens at Exhibit 1017, page 73, lines 16 to 20 for your reference. He was
`asked,
`“Q There were lots of irregular heart conditions other than
`arrhythmias; right?”
`And he answered in the affirmative. He said,
`“A Yes, in context, yes.”
`And he says,
`“I mean, everything has to be in context.”
`If you read further into his testimony that follows he’ll talk a little
`more about context and how it matters and there was never any place until
`this answer in the context of actually Shmueli.
`More to the point and far more important we think is looking at the
`question and understanding what it establishes and what it doesn’t. Dr.
`Chaitman knows that arrythmia is one of the seven that are members of
`irregular heart conditions. He also knows about the others of the seven. He
`in fact he looked at the same exhibits that Dr. Efimov had looked at. So
`when he’s asked the question,
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
`“Q Other than arrythmia, are there a lot of examples of things that
`are irregular heart conditions?”
`His answer is,
`“A Yes, sure. There’s, I don’t know, six more. That’s a lot to me.
`I don’t know.”
`This evidence does not establish that there’s a vast number. It leaves
`that question quite open and they didn’t follow up because I think they knew
`the answer. So we’re left with a group of seven, quite small.
`Next we know that in slide 28 you can see some of the examples of
`this but there doesn’t seem to be debate over it, that arrhythmia is in fact the
`most common of the atrial fibrillation, sorry, arrhythmia is the most common
`of the irregular heart conditions.
`JUDGE COTTA: Counsel, if I could interrupt for a second.
`MR. RENNER: Yes.
`JUDGE COTTA: Before you get to slide 28, is there any evidence of
`record as to how many of the seven heart conditions, irregular heart
`conditions, can be detected by PPG or by the device that’s disclosed in
`Shmueli?
`MR. RENNER: I’m looking at them. I don’t remember any specific
`point of evidence on that, Your Honor. I would expect less than all seven
`but I don’t know. I can check that when we’re on break to see if there’s
`something that directly speaks to that though.
`JUDGE COTTA: Thank you.
`MR. RENNER: You’re welcome.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Counsel, I would direct this question to both
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`parties. With respect to that list of seven or any other list you might have, I
`understand Shmueli to give a signal to start an ECG and then to stop the
`ECG when the irregular heart condition is resolved, or goes back to normal.
`I understand that that would be the argument otherwise, how many of those
`seven would fall into that category if they’re intermittent and they stop?
`MR. RENNER: Well, we know that arrhythmia does and we know
`there are no more than six others that would.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Congenital heart disease wouldn’t seem to fall
`into that, would it?
`MR. RENNER: It would not, Your Honor. It doesn’t seem like all of
`them would and that is in fact what the Shmueli reference is talking about.
`So we think again that would demonstrate even more evidence that what
`we’re talking about here is something a person of ordinary skill would
`recognize as including arrythmia when it sees irregular heart condition.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Perhaps Patent Owner could take that up.
`MR. RENNER: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Slide 28 just
`confirms again that this is the most common of the arrythmias. Slide 29
`shows the third category of evidence and that’s the intrinsic evidence at least
`as it relates to Shmueli. It’s what’s disclosed in its background. I already
`mentioned that Holter devices are there, they’re discussed quite extensively
`and they’re well known it’s been established in this record to deal with
`arrythmia and detecting arrhythmia as well as atrial fibrillation for that
`matter.
`Also discussed there are references, a list of them that are identified as
`being most relevant by this author so we know that this author tells us that
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`he considers this most relevant and among them is the Goldreich Exhibit
`1061 patent, the ‘878 patent. It too, and we’ve got excerpts from it here,
`shows us that there’s reference to arrhythmia. This author is not disguising
`his intent that arrhythmia is on his mind.
`Slide 30 you can see the -- or slide 31, let’s go to 31. The fourth
`category is when you look at this reference we can see that there’s been PCT
`searching. We can see what third parties, not even the author, think of it.
`That’s quite unusual. We normally don’t have the benefit of that type of
`evidence but here you do and in the PCT search report there’s an X
`reference that is most relevant than the library searcher against a claim that
`recites irregular heart conditions and not surprising it’s the Almen reference.
`It discloses detecting arrhythmia. Again, there’s really not a question that
`we don’t believe that arrhythmia is the topic when you see irregular heart
`condition and in context Shmueli, so both disclose we would have found it
`to have been obvious.
`If there are no further questions, I will turn to confirmation.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear.
`MR. RENNER: Any further questions on arrhythmia, otherwise I’ll
`move us to confirmation.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: No. Please continue.
`MR. RENNER: Slide 32 if I could please. This is our transition slide.
`There’s been an issue or question of whether or not confirmation has been
`disclosed in this combination of Shmueli and Osorio. If we go to slide 34.
`The record demonstrates that Shmueli renders obvious confirmation or the
`confirmed step in each of four different ways. We’re going to talk about the
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`first and then the others a little more gently because of time.
`But before so, or as doing so I want to back up and talk again about
`what Shmueli is after. It’s after ECG measurement and it’s using PPG as a
`screen. It’s using it just to preliminarily determine whether or not it makes
`sense to take the ECG and that way it doesn’t need to have constant
`connection with those electrodes we talked about. It therefore stands to
`reason, and we explain, that a person of ordinary skill seeing Shmueli is
`going to expect to actually perform the ECG for what it’s good for. It’s
`known as the gold standard in detecting irregular heart condition after all so
`they’re not going to take and perform the ECG but then disregard it as it
`relates to a heart condition, they’re actually for it to give them the
`information they’re looking for and that would be detect the presence of the
`irregular heart condition in the second sense. It’s already been detected
`preliminarily by the PPG and that would serve as a confirmation.
`Now that’s just the general nature of the combination. There’s also
`more specifically references in Shmueli, and if we look at the next slide 35
`you can see figure 7, point of a lot of conversation. Quite simply what we
`need to know about figure 7 is a few things that aren’t that difficult. If you
`look at step 50 you can see there’s a correlation that’s being performed.
`That correlation is between the two things in step 49 leading to it, the
`recorded ECG and recorded PPG measurements. So it’s putting
`mathematically these against one another, performing a correlation between
`them and it’s coming out with an indication of how good the PPG do, can
`we improve it and sure one of the things it’s doing is actually improving it
`by updating detection parameters at 39.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2021-00970 2021-00971 2021-00972
`Patent 9,572,499 B2 10,595,731 B2 10,638,941 B2
`
`
`But we know from express disclosure in Shmueli that it’s doing
`something quite different as well. In page 11 or at the bottom of page 11,
`lines 22 to 33 which we’ve cited both in the original Chaitman declaration as
`well commented much further when we were that in the reply that there was
`nothing being done with this correlation other than what I just talked about,
`the detection parameter update, we reminded the record that it tells that the
`software program contained in memory unit 28 which is a block diagram
`that has the unit that performs these steps preferably contains various
`procedures such as procedures for identifying correlations between SP02
`measurement and ECG measurement of a particular subject. No surprise
`there, that’s the correlation that we’ve talked and said nothing really new
`here.
`
`The next words are key. To detect user specific irregular heart
`condition. Thi