throbber
Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`AliveCor, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`
`8,509,882 | IPR2022-00872
`9,649,042 | IPR2022-01186
`
`Before Hon. JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and DAVID COTTA
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1029
`Apple v. AliveCor
`IPR2022-01186
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds
`
`’882 IPR*
`IPR2022-00872
`
`’042 IPR
`IPR2022-01186
`
`Ground
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy, Leijdekkers
`Obviousness over Batkin, Vyshedskiy
`Obviousness over Batkin, Vyshedskiy, Leijdekkers
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3, 7-13
`
`1-13
`1, 3, 7-13
`1-13
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-9, 13-14
`
`Ground
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt,
`Annavaram
`1-9, 13-14
`Obviousness over Batkin, Vyshedskiy
`7, 8, 10-12
`Obviousness over Batkin, Vyshedskiy, Annavaram
`8
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt, Batkin
`Obviousness over Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt, Boschetti 5
`Obviousness over Batkin, Vyshedskiy, Boschetti
`5
`
`7, 8, 10-12
`
`* The record from IPR2022-00872 is primarily referenced throughout to address topics covered in both IPRs
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Table Of Contents
`
`The Challenged Patents
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy Combination
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination
`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`Arguments Against Dependent Claim Features
`1 – Voice messages (’882 claims 3, 9, 11)
`2 – Sampling rate of 44 kHz (’882 claim 13)
`3 – Piezoelectric buzzer (’042 claim 5)
`
`4
`7
`25
`28
`42
`45
`45
`52
`56
`
`* Patent Owner did not make distinct arguments against the Platt or Annavaram combinations in the ’042 IPR
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`The Challenged Patents
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`The Challenged Patents
`
`’882 Patent
`
`’042 Patent
`
`’882 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’042 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 7
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Representative claims
`
`’882 Patent
`
`’042 Patent
`
`’882 Patent, Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`’042 Patent, Claim 1
`
`6
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Albert (US Patent No. 5,735,285)
`
`Albert
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, Abstract (cited in ’882 Petition, 8)
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 1 (cited in ’882 Petition, 9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Albert (US Patent No. 5,735,285)
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, 3:25-31 (annotated) (cited in ’882 Petition, 9; Institution Decision, 15)
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 4 (annotated) (cited in ’882 Petition, 10)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0220488)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, Fig. 2 (annotated) (cited in ’882 Petition, 11)
`
`APPLE-1005, [0011] (annotated) (cited in ’882 Petition, 10; Institution Decision, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0220488)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0012]-[0015] (cited in ’882 Petition, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`APPLE-1005, Fig. 1A (cited in ’882 Petition, 16)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0220488)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0028] (cited in ’882 Petition, 13)
`
`Vyshedskiy provisional
`
`APPLE-1012, 6 (cited in ’882 Petition, 14)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy Combination (motivation to
`combine)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶64 (cited in ’882 Petition, 17)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0012]-[0015] (cited in ’882 Petition, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 1A (cited in ’882 Petition, 12)
`
`13
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy Combination
`
`Petition
`
`Petition, 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Frequency range of 6-20 kHz
`
`1. Obvious to try
`The Supreme Court states that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to
`solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`person of ordinary skill [in the art] has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
`(2007).
`
`Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00501, Paper 41 at 37 (cited in ‘882 Reply, 5)
`
`(1) a design need
`Vyshedskiy
`
`(2) a finite number of predictable solutions
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0013]-[0015] (cited in ’882 Petition, 17; ’882 Reply, 5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`APPLE-1005, [0028] (cited in ’882 Petition, 17; ’882 Reply, 5)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Frequency range of 6-20 kHz
`
`2. Obvious to avoid human voice interference
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, 25-31 (cited in ’882 Petition, 9; ’882 Reply, 5)
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`APPLE-1005, Fig. 1A (cited in ’882 Petition, 16)
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 128:5-9 (cited in ’882 Reply, 12)
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 171:8-13 (cited in ’882 Reply, 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Frequency range of 6-20 kHz
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to avoid interference from human
`voice (below 5 kHz).
`
`’882 Reply, 6; APPLE-1021, 52:10-53:18; 48:10-49:12
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 53:11-18 (cited in ’882 Reply, 6)
`
`Shau
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 48:10-18 (cited in ’882 Reply, 6)
`
`APPLE-1023, FIG. 4, [0005], [0020] (cited in ’882 Reply, 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy Combination
`
`AliveCor does not challenge the benefits of simultaneous ECG and heart
`sound collection, but alleges that the combination has technical issues:
`
`• Vyshedskiy’s teachings are inapplicable to acoustic transmission (POR,
`23-28);
`• Vyshedskiy’s teachings are applicable to acoustic transmission
`
`• Albert uses traditional landline, which is limited to below 3 kHz and
`cannot transmit Vyshedskiy’s composite sound signal (POR, 28-32); and
`• Albert is not limited to traditional landline transmission
`
`• Albert discloses that the ECG signal is modulated by Instromedix’s heart
`card, which uses a 1.9 kHz carrier frequency (POR, 32-34).
`• Albert is not limited to using the Instromedix heart card
`
`‘882 Reply, 2; ’882 POR, 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy’s teachings are applicable to acoustic
`transmission
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0011] (cited in ’882 Reply, 9)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶10 (cited in ’882 Reply, 9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy’s teachings are applicable to acoustic
`transmission
`
`AliveCor argues Vyshedskiy is not applicable to acoustic transmission because it
`uses frequencies that overlap with human voice (below 5 kHz). (POR, 25-26).
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 48:23-49:2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 10)
`
`POR
`
`POR, 32 (cited in ’882 Reply, 10)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy’s teachings are applicable to acoustic
`transmission
`AliveCor criticizes Vyshedskiy for transmitting unmodulated body sound
`signals, causing interference with human voice (POR, 27).
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 171:8-13 (cited in ’882 Reply, 11)
`
`APPLE-1005, [0028] (cited in ’882 Reply, 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`Albert is not limited to traditioanl landline transmission
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, 3:25-31 (cited in ’882 Reply, 11)
`Jafari Deposition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 128:17-129:20 (cited in ’882 Reply, 11)
`
`22
`
`

`

`Albert is not limited to traditioanl landline transmission
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`APPLE-1005, claim 2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 15)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 69:10-16 (cited in ’882 Reply, 12)
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶15 (cited in ’882 Reply, 13)
`
`POPR
`
`’882 POPR, 21; APPLE-1008, [0022], [0034], [0054]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`

`

`Albert is not limited to the Instromedix heart card
`
`Albert
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, 2:8-15 (cited in ’882 Reply, 14)
`
`APPLE-1006, 7:17-22 (cited in ’882 Reply, 14)
`
`APPLE-1006, Abstract (cited in ’882 Petition, 8)
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`APPLE-1006, 7:65-8:1 (cited in ’882 Reply, 14)
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 131:23-132:5 (cited in ’882 Reply, 14)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers
`Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`25
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`
`“By 2010, smartphones were widely available and combined the
`functions of a landline and a PDA”
`’882 Reply, 12; APPLE-1019, ¶15; Pet., 17-18; APPLE-1007, Abstract; APPLE-1021, 69:14-7:16 and 225:5-25
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Leijdekkers
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 69:10-16 (cited in ’882 Reply, 12)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, claim 2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 15)
`
`APPLE-1007, Abstract (cited in ’882 Reply, 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`

`

`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`
`Leijdekkers further discloses the details of how to use a smartphone to
`record, display, and transmit various bio-signals.
`’882 Reply, 17; APPLE-1007, Abstract and FIG. 8
`Leijdekkers
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 8 (cited in ’882 Reply, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`28
`
`

`

`Batkin (US Patent Pubication No. 2005/0239493)
`Batkin
`
`Batkin
`
`APPLE-1008, Abstract (cited in ’882 Petition, 46)
`
`APPLE-1008, FIG. 2A-2C (cited in ’882 Petition, 47)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`

`

`Batkin (US Patent Pubication No. 2005/0239493)
`
`Batkin
`
`Batkin
`
`APPLE-1008, [0051](cited in ’882 Petition, 47)
`
`APPLE-1008, [0034](cited in ’882 Petition, 47-48)
`
`APPLE-1008, [0056](cited in ’882 Petition, 48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination (motivation to
`combine)
`While Batkin does not disclose the details of simultaneous transmission (e.g., frequency
`divisional multiple access), Vyshedskiy discloses such details.
`
`’882 Reply, 19; Pet., 48-49; APPLE-1019, ¶26; APPLE-1008, [0023], [0035]; APPLE-1021, 231:2-233:1
`
`Batkin
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1008, [0023] (cited in ’882 Reply, 19)
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 1A (cited in ’882 Petition, 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination (motivation to
`combine)
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo. Tr., 231:11-232:21 (cited in ’882 Reply, 19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`

`

`Frequency range of 6-20 kHz
`
`AliveCor criticizes the Petition because it “fails to articulate why a POSA would have
`been further motivated to select a particular carrier frequency for the ECG signal data
`as recited in the claims.” (POR, 45).
`
`1. Obvious to try
`Vyshedskiy clearly teaches using 10 kHz as an exemplary carrier frequency, and a
`POSITA would have viewed any of the disclosed carrier frequencies as obvious to try.
`
`’882 Reply, 19; APPLE-1005, [0028]; APPLE-1012, 6; Pet., 13-14; APPLE-1019, ¶28.
`
`2. Obvious to avoid human voice interference
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to choose a carrier frequency in the range of
`about 6 kHz to about 20 kHz to avoid interference from human voice, which can
`reach the frequency of about 5 kHz.
`
`’882 Reply, 19; Pet., 14; APPLE-1019, ¶28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination
`
`AliveCor does not dispute that Vyshedskiy teaches simultaneous transmission
`by frequency divisional multiple access, but alleges that the combination has
`technical issues:
`
`• Batkin only disclose simultaneous transmission of voice and ECG out of
`the cellphone (POR, 48-55)
`• Batkin renders obvious simultaneous transmission into the cellphone
`
`• Batkin’s tube connection and toggle control are incompatible with
`simultaneous transmission (POR, 57)
`• Batkin is not limited to either tube connection or toggle control
`
`• Vyshedskiy’s ECG stethoscope is incompatible with simultaneous voice
`transmission (POR, 58-59)
`• Vyshedskiy is compatible with simultaneous voice transmission
`
`• Vyshedskiy’s system is inapplicable to acoustic transmission (POR, 60)
`• Vyshedskiy is compatible with acoustic transmission
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’882 POR, 48-60
`
`34
`
`34
`
`

`

`Batkin renders obvious simultaneous transmission into
`the smartphone
`AliveCor alleges that Batkin’s “simultaneous transmission” refers to transmission
`from the cellphone, not transmission into the cellphone. (POR, 48-55).
`Batkin
`
`APPLE-1008, [0035] (cited in ’882 Reply, 20)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Decalration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶30 (cited in ’882 Reply, 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`35
`
`

`

`Batkin renders obvious simultaneous transmission into
`the smartphone
`Dr. Jafari admits that real-time simultaneous transmission out of the smartphone
`requires simultaneous transmission into the smartphone (simultaneous acquisition).
`
`’882 Reply, 20-21; APPLE-1019, ¶30; APPLE-1021, 231:2-233:1
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo. Tr., 231:11-232:10 (cited in ’882 Reply, 20-21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`36
`
`

`

`Batkin is not limited to tube connection
`
`Relying on FIG. 2, AliveCor argues that Batkin “would not allow the user to
`simultaneously speak into the cellphone because the connector occupies the
`cellphone’s audio input.” (POR, 55-56).
`
`Batkin
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 168:5-13 (cited in ’882 Reply, 18)
`
`APPLE-1008, FIGS. 2A-2B (annotated) (cited in ’882 Reply, 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`37
`
`

`

`Batkin is not limited to toggle control
`
`Relying on the “Half-Duplex” embodiment, AliveCor argues Batkin is limited to
`toggle control (POR, 56-57).
`
`Batkin
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`APPLE-1008, [0054] (cited in ’882 POR, 56)
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 230:23-231:12 (cited in ’882 Reply, 22-23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`APPLE-1008, [0035] (cited in ’882 Reply, 22-23)
`
`38
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy is compatible with simultaneous voice
`transmission
`AliveCor argues Vyshedskiy is not compatible with voice transmission, based on a
`manufactured distinction between “internal” body sound and voice messages. (POR,
`59).
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 168:5-13 (cited in ’882 Reply, 23)
`
`Jafari Depo. Tr., 166:9-21 (cited in ’882 Reply, 23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`39
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy is compatible with acoustic transmission
`
`AliveCor repeats the Ground 1 arguments that Vyshedskiy’s teachings are inapplicable
`to acoustic transmission. (POR, 60).
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, [0011] (cited in ’882 Reply, 9, 24)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶10 (cited in ’882 Reply, 9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`40
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy is compatible with acoustic transmission
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 48:23-49:2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 10, 24)
`
`POR
`
`POR, 32 (cited in ’882 Reply, 10, 24)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`41
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers
`Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`42
`
`42
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`
`By 2010, smartphones were widely available and combined the functions
`of a landline and a PDA.
`’882 Reply, 12; APPLE-1019, ¶15; Pet., 17-18; APPLE-1007, Abstract; APPLE-1021, 69:14-7:16 and 225:5-25
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Leijdekkers
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 69:10-16 (cited in ’882 Reply, 12)
`
`Vyshedskiy
`
`APPLE-1005, claim 2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 15)
`
`APPLE-1007, Abstract (cited in ’882 Reply, 12, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`43
`
`

`

`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Leijdekkers Combination
`
`Leijdekkers further discloses the details of how to use a smartphone to
`record, display, and transmit various bio-signals.
`’882 Reply, 17; APPLE-1007, Abstract and FIG. 8
`Leijdekkers
`
`APPLE-1007, FIG. 8 (cited in ’882 Reply, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`44
`
`

`

`Arguments Against Dependent Claim Features
`
`1. Voice messages
`
`2. Sampling rate of 44 kHz
`
`3. Piezoelectric buzzer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`45
`
`

`

`Voice messages (’882 patent only)
`
`’882 patent
`
`’882 patent, claims 3, 9 and 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`46
`
`

`

`Vyshedskiy’s ECG stethoscope captures voice
`messages
`AliveCor argues that Vyshedskiy’s stethoscope only captures “internal” body
`sounds, and does not capture voice messages (POR, 34-40).
`Jafari Deposition
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Jafari Depo Tr., 168:5-13 (cited in ’882 Reply, 15)
`
`APPLE-1005, [0011], claim 2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 15)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`47
`
`

`

`Voice messages are recorded even with interference
`
`Finally, AliveCor alleges that voice messages would interfere with heart
`sounds. (POR, 38-40).
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`Jafari Depo. Tr., 166:9-21 (cited in ’882 Reply, 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`48
`
`

`

`Albert suggests real-time spoken communication
`
`Albert
`
`APPLE-1006, 2:34-37 (cited in ’882 Petition, 22)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶84 (cited in ’882 Petition, 22-23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`49
`
`

`

`Batkin also discloses collecting voice messages
`
`Batkin
`
`APPLE-1008, [0035] (cited in ’882 Reply, 19-20)
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶30 (cited in ’882 Reply, 20-21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`50
`
`

`

`Leijdekkers renders obvious recording voice messages
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶25 (cited in ’882 Reply, 18)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`51
`
`

`

`Arguments Against Dependent Claim Features
`
`1. Voice messages
`
`2. Sampling rate of 44 kHz
`
`3. Piezoelectric buzzer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`52
`
`

`

`Sampling rate of 44 kHz (’882 patent only)
`
`‘882 patent
`
`’882 patent, claim 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`53
`
`

`

`Sampling rate of 44 kHz is obvious
`
`AliveCor argues that Albert discloses a sampling rate of 8 kHz and there is no
`reason to change it. (POR, 40-41).
`Vyshedskiy
`
`Jafari Deposition
`
`APPLE-1005, [0028] (cited in ’882 Petition, 13; ’882 Reply, 19)
`Luke
`
`APPLE-1024, 2 (cited in ’882 Reply, 17)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Jafari Depo. Tr., 190:4-22 (cited in ’882 Reply, 16)
`
`54
`
`

`

`Sampling rate of 44 kHz is obvious
`
`Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`APPLE-1019, ¶23 (cited in ’882 Reply, 17)
`Jafari Declaration
`
`Jafari Declaration, ¶26 (cited in ’882 Reply, 17; APPLE-1021, 72:15-74:5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`55
`
`

`

`Arguments Against Dependent Claim Features
`
`1. Voice messages
`
`2. Sampling rate of 44 kHz
`
`3. Piezoelectric buzzer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`56
`
`

`

`Piezoelectric buzzer (’042 patent only)
`
`’042 patent
`
`’042 patent, claim 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`57
`
`

`

`Piezoelectric buzzer is obvious
`
`Boschetti
`
`AliveCor alleges that Ikonen is not
`prior art and Boschetti uses phase
`modulation. (’042 POR, 37)
`
`Boschetti, 1:55-62 (cited in ’042 Reply, 16)
`
`Ikonen
`
`Ikonen (cited in ’042 Petition, 38, 67)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`58
`
`

`

`Other Reference Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`59
`
`59
`
`

`

`Leijdekkers is prior art
`
`Munford Declaration
`
`APPLE-1022, ¶8
`
`APPLE-1022, ¶9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`60
`
`

`

`Accelerometer limitations (’042 patent only)
`
`AliveCor argues does not challenge that Annavaram discloses the accelerometer
`limitations, but challenges the motivation to combine Albert and Vyshedskiy (’882
`POR, 37).
`
`‘042 patent
`
`’042 patent, claims 10-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`61
`
`

`

`Accelerometer limitations (’042 patent only)
`
`AliveCor argues does not challenge that Annavaram discloses the accelerometer
`limitations, but challenges the motivation to combine Albert and Vyshedskiy (’882
`POR, 37).
`
`Annavaram
`
`Annavaram, Abstract and 2 (cited in ’042 Petition, 44)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`62
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket