`
`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
`
`