IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Albert
`In re Patent of:
`9,649,042 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0085IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 16, 2017
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/964,490
`
`Filing Date:
`August 12, 2013
`
`Title:
`HEART MONITORING SYSTEM USABLE WITH A
`SMARTPHONE OR COMPUTER
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 9,649,042 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ................................................................................ 1 
`B.  Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 1 
`C.  Priority Date .............................................................................................. 1 
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW AND THE ’042 PATENT ........................... 2 
`A.  ’042 Patent ................................................................................................ 2 
`B.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 4 
`C.  Level of Ordinary Skill ............................................................................. 5 
`D.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... 5 
`III.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 6 
`A.  [GROUND 1] – Challenged Claims 1-9 and 13-14 Are Obvious Over
`Albert, Vyshedskiy, and Platt ................................................................... 6 
`1.  Albert Overview .............................................................................. 6 
`2.  Vyshedskiy Overview ..................................................................... 8 
`3. 
`Platt Overview ............................................................................... 15 
`4. 
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Platt Combination ................................... 17 
`5. 
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 23 
`6. 
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................... 33 
`7. 
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................... 36 
`8. 
`Claim 4 .......................................................................................... 37 
`9. 
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 38 
`10.  Claim 6 .......................................................................................... 38 
`11.  Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 39 
`12.  Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 39 
`13.  Claim 9 .......................................................................................... 42 
`14.  Claim 13 ........................................................................................ 42 
`15.  Claim 14 ........................................................................................ 42 
`B.  [GROUND 2] – Challenged Claims 7, 8 and 10-12 Are Obvious Over
`Albert, Platt, Vyshedskiy, and Annavaram ............................................ 44 
`1.  Annavaram Overview.................................................................... 44 
`2. 
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Platt-Annavaram combination ............... 44 
`3. 
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 47 
`4. 
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 48 
`5. 
`Claim 10 ........................................................................................ 49 
`6. 
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 49 
`7. 
`Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 50 
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.  [GROUND 3] – Challenged Claims 1-9 and 13-14 Are Obvious Over
`Batkin In View of Vyshedskiy ............................................................... 51 
`1. 
`Batkin Overview ............................................................................ 51 
`2. 
`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy Combination ........................................... 53 
`3. 
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 56 
`4. 
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................... 65 
`5. 
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................... 66 
`6. 
`Claim 4 .......................................................................................... 66 
`7. 
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 67 
`8. 
`Claim 6 .......................................................................................... 68 
`9. 
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 68 
`10.  Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 69 
`11.  Claim 9 .......................................................................................... 70 
`12.  Claim 13 ........................................................................................ 70 
`13.  Claim 14 ........................................................................................ 71 
`D.  [GROUND 4] – Challenged Claims 7, 8 and 10-12 Are Obvious Over
`Batkin, Vyshedskiy, and Annavaram ..................................................... 71 
`1. 
`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Annavaram Combination ....................... 71 
`2. 
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 72 
`3. 
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 73 
`4. 
`Claim 10 ........................................................................................ 74 
`5. 
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 74 
`6. 
`Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 75 
`E.  [GROUND 5] – Challenged Claim 8 Is Obvious Over Albert,
`Vyshedskiy, Platt, and Batkin ................................................................. 76 
`1. 
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Platt-Batkin Combination ...................... 76 
`2. 
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 78 
`F.  [GROUND 6] – Challenged Claim 5 Is Obvious Over Albert,
`Vyshedskiy, Platt, and Boschetti ............................................................ 78 
`1. 
`Boschetti Overview ....................................................................... 78 
`2. 
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Platt-Boschetti Combination .................. 79 
`3. 
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 80 
`G.  [GROUND 7] – Challenged Claim 5 Is Obvious Over Batkin,
`Vyshedskiy, and Boschetti ...................................................................... 80 
`1. 
`The Batkin-Vyshedskiy-Boschetti Combination .......................... 80 
`2. 
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 81 
`IV.  The Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution—§ 325(d) ............................ 82 
`V. 
`FEES .............................................................................................................. 83 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 83 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`VII.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 83 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 83 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 83 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 83 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................ 84 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,649,042 to Albert (“the ’042 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’042 patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of European Patent
`Application No. 11/793,020 (“the Prosecution History of
`EP11793020”)
`
`APPLE-1005
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0220488 (“Vyshedskiy”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,485,416 (“Platt”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
` Annavaram, Murali, et al. “Multimodal sensing for pediatric
`obesity applications.” UrbanSense08 (2008): 21(“Annavaram”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0239493 (“Batkin”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
` Lin, Feida, et al. “Operating system battle in the ecosystem of
`smartphone industry.” 2009 international symposium on
`information engineering and electronic commerce. IEEE, 2009
`(“Lin”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
` Kobelev, Alexander V., et al. “Smartphone-based Mobile
`Solutions for Health Control in Humans.” Russian-Bavarian
`Conference on Bio-Medical Engineering. 2007 (“Kobelev”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
` Krejcar, Ondrej, et al. “Smartphone, PDA and Embedded
`Devices as mobile monitoring stations of Biotelemetric
`System.” 2009 5th IEEE GCC Conference & Exhibition. IEEE,
`2009 (“Krejcar”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
` U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/466,242 (“Vyshedskiy
`Provisional”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`APPLE-1013
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,273,053 to Saltzstein (“Saltzstein”)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
` Lessing, Lawrence. “Man of high fidelity.” Edwin Howard
`Armstrong (1956) (“Lessing”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
` Mendoza, Elvira, et al. “Differences in voice quality between
`men and women: Use of the long-term average spectrum
`(LTAS).” Journal of voice 10.1 (1996): 59-66 (“Mendoza”)
`
`APPLE-1016
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,409,984 to Dick (“Dick”)
`
`APPLE-1017
`
` Declaration of Munford
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`
`
`Ikonen, “Acoustic ecology in the digital era.” (2017)
`
`APPLE-1019
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090149767 to Rossetti
`(“Rossetti”)
`
`APPLE-1020
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,859,222 to Woud (“Woud”)
`
`APPLE-1021
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,394,899 to Sacco Boschetti (“Boschetti”)
`
`APPLE-1022
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,735,285 to Albert (“Albert”)
`
`APPLE-1023
`
` Mathie, M. J., J. Basilakis, and B. G. Celler. “A system for
`monitoring posture and physical activity using accelerometers.”
`2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International
`Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
`Society. Vol. 4. IEEE, 2001.
`
`APPLE-1024
`
` Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`v
`
`

`

`Apple Inc. petitions for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-14 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,649,042 (“the ’042 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Apple certifies that the ’042 patent is available for IPR. Apple is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Apple requests IPR on the grounds set forth below. Additional explanation
`
`is set forth in the Declaration from Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh (APPLE-1003).
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-9, 13-14
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`7, 8, 10-12
`
`1-9, 13-14
`7, 8, 10-12
`8
`5
`
`5
`
`§103 Basis
`Albert (APPLE-1022), Vyshedskiy
`(APPLE-1005), Platt (APPLE-1006)
`Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt, Annavaram
`(APPLE-1007)
`Batkin (APPLE-1008), Vyshedskiy
`Batkin, Vyshedskiy, Annavaram
`Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt, Batkin
`Albert, Vyshedskiy, Platt, Boschetti
`(APPLE-1021)
`Batkin, Vyshedskiy, Boschetti
`
`C.
`Priority Date
`The ’042 patent was filed on August 12, 2013, as a divisional of an
`
`application filed on June 8, 2010 (“Critical Date”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Each reference was published more than a year before the Critical Date and
`
`qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b). APPLE-1022, Cover;
`
`APPLE-1005, Cover; APPLE-1006, Cover; APPLE-1007, 1; APPLE-1017, ¶10;
`
`APPLE-1008, Cover; APPLE-1021, Cover.
`
`Reference
`Albert
`Platt
`Vyshedskiy
`Annavaram
`Batkin
`Boschetti
`
`Date(s)
`4/7/1998
`11/26/2002
`11/4/2004
`2008
`10/27/2005
`7/1/2008
`
`Basis
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW AND THE ’042 PATENT
`In his declaration, Dr. Sarrafzadeh provides an overview of cardiac
`
`monitoring technology relevant to the ’042 patent. APPLE-1003, ¶¶33-34.
`
`A.
`’042 Patent
`The ’042 patent relates to a personal monitoring device that senses an ECG
`
`electric signal, converts the ECG electric signal into a modulated ECG audio
`
`signal, and transmits the modulated ECG audio signal to a computing device for
`
`demodulation, storage, transmission, display, and analysis. APPLE-1001,
`
`Abstract; APPLE-1003, ¶35.
`
`FIG. 4 of the ’042 patent illustrates an example where the personal
`
`2
`
`

`

`monitoring device is a cell phone case (converter assembly 14) that is configured
`
`to convert the electrical signals from the ECG electrodes (sensor assembly 12) to a
`
`frequency modulated physiological audio signal which is transmitted by an audio
`
`cable (cable 26) to a smartphone (3.5 mm headphone jack 28 on smartphone 30).
`
`APPLE-1001, 5:49-54; APPLE-1003, ¶36.
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 4 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’042 patent also discloses that using a high carrier frequency of around
`
`10 kHz, or in the 6 kHz to 20 kHz range, allows simultaneous recording of voice
`
`(e.g., spoken messages) and physiological (e.g., ECG) signals over a single audio
`
`channel, where the voice and the frequency modulated physiological signals are in
`
`different frequency bands. APPLE-1001, 6:3-8; APPLE-1003, ¶37.
`
`3
`
`

`

`B.
`Prosecution History
`During prosecution, the claims were rejected as obvious over LeBouf
`
`(US2010/0217100A1), Goeltz (US3779237), and Amitai (US2010/0042008) or
`
`Sherman (US2011/0015496). APPLE-1002, 265. Applicant amended claim 9 to
`
`recite “a frequency modulated ECG audio signal having a carrier frequency in the
`
`range of from about 6 kHz to about 20 kHz” and argued that this limitation was not
`
`suggested by the prior art. APPLE-1002, 162-163. The Examiner conceded that
`
`the cited references did not disclose this frequency range.
`
`The Examiner did not use Vyshedskiy in any rejection during prosecution.
`
`Different from the references cited by the Examiner, Vyshedskiy discloses the
`
`claimed frequency range.
`
`
`
`During the prosecution of European Patent Application No. 11793020.6, a
`
`sister application of the ’042 patent, the Examiner rejected claims similar to the
`
`Challenged Claims over US20050239493A1 (Batkin), US20080146892A1
`
`(Leboeuf), US20040220488A1 (Vyshedskiy), US3779237 (Roth), US3042277
`
`(Depedro), US5321618 (Gessman), and US5735285 (Albert). APPLE-1004, 17,
`
`23-35. AliveCor withdrew this European application. APPLE-1004, 1-3. The
`
`prosecution in Europe is relevant because the combinations of references
`
`considered in Europe have not been considered in the United States and were used
`
`to prevent issuance of highly similar claims. These references and the
`
`4
`
`

`

`combinations advanced in this petition—not previously considered in the United
`
`States—demonstrate that, as in Europe, the ’042 patent never should have issued.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had either (1)
`
`at least a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or
`
`biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least two years of relevant
`
`multidisciplinary work experience designing wearable devices and/or sensors for
`
`measuring physiological signals or parameters of mammals, or (2) a medical de-
`
`gree and at least five years of relevant work experience designing wearable devices
`
`and/or sensors for measuring physiological signals or parameters of mammals.
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶16. A greater amount of education, i.e., a doctorate in electrical en-
`
`gineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a related discipline
`
`with a focus on designing wearable devices and/or sensors for measuring physio-
`
`logical signals or parameters of mammals would also qualify for the hypothetical
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in lieu of fewer years of multidisciplinary work
`
`experience. Id. Additional education or industry experience may compensate for a
`
`deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Id.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Because the evidence and the prior art’s description of the claimed elements
`
`are similar to the ’042 patent specification, no formal claim constructions are
`
`5
`
`

`

`necessary in this proceeding.1 Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d
`
`1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE2
`A.
`[GROUND 1] – Challenged Claims 1-9 and 13-14 Are Obvi-
`ous Over Albert, Vyshedskiy, and Platt
`1.
`Albert Overview
`Similar to the ’042 patent, Albert discloses physiological data acquisition via
`
`the sound input of a computing device. APPLE-1022, Abstract; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶45. As shown in FIG. 1, a Heart Card 12 monitors an ECG electric signal and
`
`converts the ECG electric signal into a frequency modulated ECG sound signal
`
`14. APPLE-1022, 3:10-24; APPLE-1003, ¶45.3 This frequency modulated ECG
`
`sound signal 14 is transmitted via a speaker (and a telephone system) to a
`
`microphone of a computing device 16, which “includes resident software that
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to respond to any claim constructions offered by Patent
`
`Owner or adopted by the Board.
`
`2 Apple understands that challenges for failure to meet §101 and §112 cannot be
`
`brought in this forum. Apple is not waiving any arguments under these sections
`
`(or other arguments not available in an IPR) or arguments regarding claim scope.
`
`The general descriptions of the references and the combinations thereof are incor-
`
`porated into the sections below where the references are cited.
`
`3 Unless indicated otherwise, bold means emphasis added.
`
`6
`
`

`

`processes the biomedical data contained in the frequency modulated audio signal
`
`and displays the data on the computer screen 18.” APPLE-1022, 3:25-31.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`FIG. 4 shows that a palmtop computer demodulates (via demodulator 58)
`
`and digitizes (via analog to digital converter 60) the frequency modulated audio
`
`signal received via microphone 30 to provide digital output for digital filtering,
`
`storage, and display. APPLE-1022, 4:19-36; APPLE-1003, ¶46.
`
`7
`
`

`

`APPLE-1022, FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`2.
`Vyshedskiy Overview
`Vyshedskiy is a U.S. Patent Application that was published on November 4,
`
`2004. APPLE-1005, Cover. It claims priority to U.S. 60/466,242 (“Vyshedskiy
`
`Provisional”).
`
`Similar to the ’042 patent, Vyshedskiy discloses physiological data
`
`acquisition via the sound input of a computing device. APPLE-1005, Title;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶48. Specifically, Vyshedskiy discloses an “EKG Stethoscope” that
`
`collects both body sound and ECG electric signals (APPLE-1005, [0011]);
`
`converts, through modulation, the ECG electric signals to ECG audio signals with
`
`certain frequencies to generate a composite audio signal (APPLE-1005, [0028]);
`
`and transmits the composite audio signal into a microphone port of a computing
`
`8
`
`

`

`device (e.g., PDA or cell phone) (APPLE-1005, [0010]-[0011]), where the
`
`computing device digitizes and demodulates the composite signal so that both a
`
`phonocardiogram and an electrocardiogram can be displayed/visualized together
`
`(APPLE-1005, [0013]). APPLE-1003, ¶48. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that the terms “electrocardiogram,” “EKG,” and “ECG” are synonymous. APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶48.
`
`As shown in FIG. 2, Vyshedskiy’s ECG signal is picked up by ECG
`
`electrodes 203 and transmitted via wire or wirelessly 205 into modulator 206.
`
`APPLE-1005, [0033]; APPLE-1003, ¶49. Similarly, Vyshedskiy’s body sound
`
`signals are picked up by a body sound monitor (chest piece) 201 and transmitted
`
`via wire or wirelessly 204 to modulator 206. Id.
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`Vyshedskiy also discloses converting, through modulation, the electric ECG
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`signals to audio signals with certain frequencies, and generating a composite audio
`
`signal for transmission into a microphone port of a computing device. As shown in
`
`FIG. 1A, Input 101 (e.g., the ECG signal) is amplified by Amplifier 102, filtered
`
`by Lowpass Filter 103, and multiplied by a Carrier Frequency 107 in the Analog
`
`Multiplier 104. APPLE-1005, [0026]; APPLE-1003, ¶50. A plurality of inputs
`
`from Input 1, Input 2, to Input N are modulated in the same manner and summed
`
`by Summing Amplifier 105 to generate a composite audio signal output for
`
`transmission through a microphone port. APPLE-1005, [0027]; APPLE-1003, ¶50.
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 1A.
`
`
`
`In terms of frequency, Vyshedskiy’s modulated composite signal 106 can
`
`have 8 channels (corresponding to Input 1, Input 2, to Input 8), and that the carrier
`
`10
`
`

`

`frequencies of these 8 channels can be as follows: f1=2,500 Hz, f2=5,000 Hz,
`
`f3=7,500 Hz, f4=10,000 Hz, f5=12,500 Hz, f6=15,000 Hz, f7=17,500 Hz, and
`
`f8=20,000 Hz. APPLE-1005, [0028]; APPLE-1003, ¶51. In Vyshedskiy, each
`
`channel (carrier frequency modulated by the input) occupies +/-1000 Hz from the
`
`carrier frequency. Id. For example, channel 1 (carrier frequency f1 modulated by
`
`input 1) occupies from 1500 Hz to 3500 Hz. Id.
`
`Vyshedskiy discloses an example where body sound data (ranging from 20
`
`Hz to 2000 Hz) is combined with ECG data communicated over a carrier
`
`frequency of 3000 Hz. APPLE-1005, [0034]; APPLE-1003, ¶52. Despite the
`
`example of 3000 Hz, a POSITA would not have viewed Vyshedskiy as limited to
`
`this embodiment. APPLE-1003, ¶52; In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1360
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). Rather, a POSITA would have considered the full breadth of
`
`Vyshedskiy’s disclosure and would have considered the other carrier frequencies
`
`over 2000 Hz for the channel used for ECG data. APPLE-1003, ¶52. As Dr.
`
`Sarrafzadeh explains, a POSITA would have viewed the selection of the carrier
`
`frequency for the ECG signal as a matter of obvious design choice and would have
`
`considered any of the carrier frequencies disclosed by Vyshedskiy that are higher
`
`than 2000 Hz (e.g., f2=5,000 Hz, f3=7,500 Hz, f4=10,000 Hz, f5=12,500 Hz,
`
`f6=15,000 Hz, f7=17,500 Hz, f8=20,000 Hz). Id. In fact, a POSITA would have
`
`viewed any of these disclosed carrier frequencies as obvious to try, as Vyshedskiy
`
`11
`
`

`

`describes a finite number of carrier frequencies that reside above 2000 Hz and fall
`
`within the bandwidth of a microphone port (which is 20 Hz to 44,100 Hz).
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶52; APPLE-1005, [0016].
`
`For example, Vyshedskiy’s provisional application shows use of a carrier
`
`frequency of 10,000 Hz for ECG data combined with body sound data. APPLE-
`
`1012, 6; APPLE-1003, ¶53. A POSITA would have recognized that using a higher
`
`carrier frequency would have offered benefits of further separating the ECG data
`
`from the body sound data to avoid interference. APPLE-1003, ¶53. To avoid
`
`interference, a POSITA would have found it obvious to choose a carrier frequency
`
`in the range of about 6 kHz to about 20 kHz (e.g., f3=7,500 Hz, f4=10,000 Hz,
`
`f5=12,500 Hz, f6=15,000 Hz, f7=17,500 Hz, f8=20,000 Hz) to avoid interference
`
`from human voice, which can reach the frequency of about 5 kHz. APPLE-1015,
`
`FIG.1; APPLE-1003, ¶53. A POSITA would have understood that Vyshedskiy’s
`
`teachings regarding frequency apply to both amplitude modulation and frequency
`
`modulation. APPLE-1003, ¶¶34, 53, 193.
`
`As shown in FIG. 2, Vyshedskiy discloses transmitting the composite audio
`
`signal into a microphone port of a computing device (e.g., PDA or cell phone).
`
`APPLE-1005, [0011]; APPLE-1003, ¶54.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`Vyshedskiy’s computing device digitizes and demodulates the composite
`
`signal so that both a phonocardiogram and an electrocardiogram can be
`
`displayed/visualized together. APPLE-1005, [0013]; APPLE-1003, ¶55. As shown
`
`in FIG. 1B, the composite audio signal from microphone port 121 is digitized by
`
`the sound card of the computing device. APPLE-1005, [0030]. The frequency
`
`band around the carrier frequency 123 is separated by a digital bandpass filter 122,
`
`multiplied by carrier frequency 123 in a digital multiplier 128, and filtered by a
`
`Digital Lowpass Filter 129. APPLE-1005, [0030]; APPLE-1003, ¶55.
`
`13
`
`

`

`APPLE-1005, FIG. 1B (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`When the carrier frequency 123 of FIG. 1B is equal to the carrier frequency
`
`107 (which a POSITA would have known as a standard technique), the resulting
`
`Output signal 130 is equal to the Input 101 of FIG. 1A. APPLE-1005, [0030];
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶56. In this way, the computing device digitalizes and demodulates
`
`the modulated audio signal in the desired channel, and extracts the underlying ECG
`
`signal. APPLE-1003, ¶56. The output (e.g., ECG signal) can be recorded,
`
`visualized/displayed, and analyzed. APPLE-1005, [0031]; APPLE-1003, ¶56.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`3.
`Platt Overview
`Similar to the ’042 patent, Platt relates to a remote health monitoring
`
`apparatus for medical conditions. APPLE-1006, Title, Abstract; APPLE-1003, ¶58.
`
`Specifically, Platt discloses a cell phone handset that includes a battery container
`
`having a physiological monitoring device. APPLE-1006, FIG. 1; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶58.
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 1, cell phone handset 10 includes battery pack container
`
`12, which includes three ECG electrodes 15 on its outer surface. APPLE-1003,
`
`¶59; APPLE-1006, 3:56-61. The ECG monitoring device 14 produces tone signals
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`(ECG audio signals) corresponding to the signals detected by the electrodes 15 and
`
`is acoustically coupled via the speaker output 18 to the microphone of the cell
`
`phone handset 10. APPLE-1006, 4:7-10, FIG. 2; APPLE-1003, ¶59.
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`In action, the user places the electrodes 15 (located on the outer surface of
`
`the batter container 12) against his/her chest so that an ECG signal is detected by
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`the physiological monitoring device 14, which then produces tone signals (ECG
`
`audio signals) via the speaker output 18 into a sound microphone of the cell phone.
`
`APPLE-1006, 4:7-20; APPLE-1003, ¶60. Platt also discloses detecting other bio-
`
`signals including heart sounds. APPLE-1006, 3:20-28.
`
`4.
`The Albert-Vyshedskiy-Platt Combination
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Albert with Vyshedskiy
`
`and Platt. APPLE-1003, ¶¶71-81. Albert, Vyshedskiy, and Platt are all directed to
`
`monitoring ECG and/or heart sounds, via the sound input of a mobile device (e.g.,
`
`cell phone). APPLE-1005, Abstract, 3:20-28; APPLE-1006, Abstract; APPLE-
`
`1022, Abstract; APPLE-1003, ¶71.
`
`Vyshedskiy discloses that visualizing a phonocardiogram “simultaneously
`
`with an electrocardiogram” is beneficial because auscultation of heart sounds is
`
`greatly facilitated by knowing the event of the heart cycle visualized on the EKG,
`
`and automatic heart sound analysis is facilitated by identification of events on the
`
`electrocardiogram. APPLE-1005, [0013]-[0015]. In view of Vyshedskiy, it would
`
`have been obvious to modify Albert to monitor both ECG and body sound signals.
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶72. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Albert to
`
`monitor both ECG and body sound signals, because doing so will allow more
`
`accurate detection. APPLE-1003, ¶72. A POSITA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success because Vyshedskiy teaches using separate channels to
`
`17
`
`

`

`transmit ECG data and body sound data. APPLE-1003, ¶72; APPLE-1005, [0028].
`
`In terms of frequency, Vyshedskiy’s modulated composite signal 106 with
`
`ECG data can have 8 channels (corresponding to Input 1, Input 2, to Input 8), and
`
`the carrier frequencies of these 8 channels can be as follows: f1=2,500 Hz,
`
`f2=5,000 Hz, f3=7,500 Hz, f4=10,000 Hz, f5=12,500 Hz, f6=15,000 Hz,
`
`f7=17,500 Hz, and f8=20,000 Hz. APPLE-1005, [0028]. Each channel (carrier
`
`frequency modulated by the input) occupies +/-1000 Hz from the carrier
`
`frequency. Id. For ECG acoustic signals, a POSITA would have found it obvious
`
`to choose a carrier frequency from about 6 kHz to about 20 kHz (e.g., f3=7,500
`
`Hz, f4=10,000 Hz, f5=12,500 Hz, f6=15,000 Hz, f7=17,500 Hz, f8=20,000 Hz) to
`
`avoid interference from human voice, which can reach the frequency of about 5
`
`kHz. APPLE-1015, FIG.1; APPLE-1003, ¶73.
`
`Vyshedskiy’s ECG signal is picked up by ECG electrodes 203 and
`
`transmitted via wire or wirelessly 205 into a Signal Conditioning and Modulation
`
`Box 206. APPLE-1005, [0033]. A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`Signal Conditioning and Modulation Box 206 is a converter assembly that is
`
`integrated with, and electrically connected to the electrode assembly, and is
`
`configured to convert the ECG signal generated by the electrode assembly to a
`
`frequency modulated ECG audio signal having a carrier frequency of from about 6
`
`kHz to about 20 kHz. APPLE-1003, ¶75; APPLE-1005, Abstract, [0026]-[0028],
`
`18
`
`

`

`[0032]-[0035], FIGS. 1-3.
`
`
`
`APPLE-1005, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`In addition to modifying Albert to implement Vyshedskiy’s transmission of
`
`ECG data and body sound data at frequency ranges described by Vyshedskiy, a
`
`POSITA would have looked to Platt for disclosure relevant to the form factor for
`
`the electrode assembly used to measure the ECG data. APPLE-1003, ¶76. Platt’s
`
`cell phone handset 10 includes battery pack container 12 with three ECG
`
`electrodes 15 on its outer surface for ECG monitoring. APPLE-1006, 3:56-4:10;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶76; FIG. 2. Platt discloses that “[i]t would be advantageous to
`
`provide a monitoring apparatus which includes the ECG equipment and
`
`telephone handset in the one device so that the apparatus is simple and
`
`convenient to use by the cardiac patient in all circumstances as well as dispensing
`
`19
`
`

`

`with the need to have the electrodes connected to the equipment by leads or wires
`
`which can introduce errors in the readings.” APPLE-1006, 2:28-34. Platt also
`
`explains that “[t]he advantages of the apparatus … is that the handset 10 with
`
`electrodes 15 ‘built in’ provides a simple and convenient method of detecting and
`
`transmitting data corresponding to electrical cardiac activity without the
`
`possibility of noise and errors being present” and that “[t]he patient is able to
`
`carry a single device in the form of a cellular phone handset and be able to be
`
`connected at any time to the central location for analysis of the data.” Id., 4:21-
`
`29.
`
`In view of these disclosures in Platt, a POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to implement the electrode assembly and ECG processing circuitry in a container
`
`that attaches to a mobile device (e.g., cell phone) to obtain the advantages explic-
`
`itly set forth in Platt. APPLE-1003, ¶77. Indeed, given the similarity between the
`
`ECG components in Albert-Vyshedskiy and the ECG components in Platt, and the
`
`limited number of design choice options—housing connected to the mobile device
`
`or housing separate from the mobile device—it would have been obvious for a
`
`POSITA to try incorporating Albert-Vyshedskiy’s ECG components in Platt’s cell
`
`phone container with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
`
`Such a change in housing design is also an obvious matter of design choice.
`
`Platt’s cell phone container is disclosed in the prior art and its substitution presents
`
`20
`
`

`

`no unexpected result, so it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for
`
`a POSITA to modify Albert-Vyshedskiy to use Platt’s container to house the ECG
`
`electronic components and attach them to the mobile device (e.g., cell phone). AP-
`
`PLE-1003, ¶78. Indeed, the change in the housing design would not have had any
`
`appreciable effect on the function of Albert-Vyshedskiy’s ECG device other than
`
`the form factor used to sense the ECG data. APPLE-1003, ¶78.
`
`For these reasons, a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the
`
`ECG elect