PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a light block configured to prevent at least a portion of light from the plurality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light-emitting diodes from reaching the plurality of photodiodes without first
`
`
`
`
`reaching the tissue; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a processor configured to receive and process the outputted at least one signal and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine a physiological parameter of the user responsive to the outputted at
`
`
`
`
`least one signal: and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a processing device configured to wirelessly receive physiological parameterdata
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the physiological monitoring device, wherein the processing device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprisesa user interface, a storage device, and a networkinterface configured
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to wirelessly communicate with the physiological monitoring device, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wherein the userinterface includes a touch-screen display configured to present
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`visual feedback responsive to the physiological parameter data.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 17:20-18:18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. The system of claim 20, wherein atleast one of the plurality of light-emitting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diodes is configured to emit light of a first wavelength andat least one of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of light-emitting diodes is configured to emit light of a second
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wavelength, the second wavelength being different than the first wavelength.
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 16:21-23.
`
`
`Cc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties have stipulated to the same level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’745 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as the Poeze patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[A] person with a working knowledgeof physiological monitoring
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technologies. The person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in
`an academic discipline emphasizing the design ofelectrical, computer, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`software technologies, in combination with training orat least one to two
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technologies. Alternatively, the person could have also had a Masterof
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`related work experience in the same discipline.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Stipulation of Facts § 10, EDIS Doc. ID 770692 (May 13, 2022).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties dispute the construction of the term “second shape”in claims 1 and 20, but
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`they agree that the differences between their proposed constructions do not affect any disputed
`
`
`
`179
`
`
`
`184
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`184
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`issue. See CIB at 185-86; RIB at 163-64. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to have its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, whichthe parties agreeis “‘a shape different from the first shape.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claims must
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Infringement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainants allege that the Accused Products infringe claims 9 and 27 of the ’745
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, relying on a theory of induced infringement with respect to claim 27. CIB at 188-202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple only disputes infringement with respect to the “first shape” and “second shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limitations. RIB at 164-73; RRB at 81-88. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`finds that Complainants have not shown, by a preponderanceofthe evidence, that the Accused
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Products infringe claims 9 or 27 of the ’745 patent.
`
`
`
`it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`°745 Patent Claim 9
`
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element[1 preamble]: “A physiological monitoring device
`
`comprising”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no dispute that each of the Accused Products is a “physiological monitoring
`
`device” as required by the preamble of claim 1. See CIB at 188. Dr. Madisetti identified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence that the Accused Products are devices that can measure blood oxygen. Tr. (Madisetti)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 729:24-730:6; CDX-0011C.073; CX-0241C (Apple Watch Series First Look); CX-1532 at 4-5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Apple Watch Series 6 Press Release); CX-1447 at 7 (Apple Watch Series 7 website); CX-1449
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 2 (Apple Watch Series 7 website). Accordingly, the evidence of record showsthat the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preamble limitations are met by the Accused Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`% The parties have stipulated that the preamblesof the asserted patent claims are limiting. See Joint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stipulation of Facts § 9, EDIS Doc. ID 770692 (May13, 2022).
`
`
`
`180
`
`
`
`185
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`185
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element[1A] “a plurality of light-emitting diodes configured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emit light in a first shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no dispute that each of the Accused Products hasa plurality of light-emitting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diodes emitting light in a shape. See CIB at 188-90. Dr. Madisetti identified four sets of red,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infrared, and green LEDson the sensor board of the Accused Products. Tr. (Madisetti) at 730:7-
`
`LEDs
`
`é
`
`
`LEDs
`
`
`LEDs
`
`LEDs
`
`
`731:1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDX-0011C.074 (labeling LEDs on CX-1548Cat 37); see also CX-0281C (Block Dep. Tr.) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`83:11-85:16 (identifying LEDs in the Accused Products); Tr. (Mehra) at 855:4-856:14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(describing LEDs in the Accused Products); CX-0057C at 2 (Series 6 schematic); CX-0059C at 2
`
`
`(Series 7 schematic).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Madisetti also used a camera to capture images of the light emitted by the LEDs in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Accused Products. Tr. (Madisetti) at 724:14-729:23, 730:7-731:1.
`
`
`
`181
`
`
`
`186
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`186
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Green (Surface)
`
`
`
`Red (Surface)
`
`
`
`
`IR (Surface)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDX-0011C.074 (citing CX-1546C at 5, 15, 1); CIB at 189-90. Dr. Madisetti also captured
`
`
`
`imagesofthe light 2mm from the LEDs—before passing through aSe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tr. (Madisett1) at 745:5-25.
`
`Greer:
`
`
`| ed iii!
`
`
`
`
`
`CX-1546C at 5, 15, 1; see CDX-0011C.091; CIB at 189-90.°’ Thereis no dispute that this light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is emitted in a shape, and accordingly, the evidence of record showsthat this limitationis met.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`®? As discussed infra in the context of the “material” limitation, the relevant “first shape” is the shape of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the light before passing throughthe lens.
`
`
`
`182
`
`
`
`187
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`187
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element [1B]: “a material configured to be positioned between the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of light-emitting diodes and tissue on a wrist of a user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whenthe physiological monitoring deviceis in use, the material
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to changethefirst shape into a second shape by which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the light emitted from one or more ofthe plurality of light-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emitting diodes is projected towardsthe tissue”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to the “material configured to be positioned betweenthe plurality of light-
`
`emitting diodes andtissue ona wrist of a user,” Dr. Madisetti identified aPs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rai that is positioned between the LEDs and the wrist of the user. Tr. (Madisetti) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`731:25-732:24; CDX-0011C.076. Dr. Madisetti used a camera to capture imagesofthe light
`
`2mmfrom the LEDs—before passing throughi. Tr. (Madisetti) at 745:5-25;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDX-0011C.091 (citing CX-1546C at 5, 15, 1). He also captured imagesofthe light after
`
`
`
`passing throughi and compared the shape ofthe light at three locations—at the LEDs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`beforeME and after. Tr. (Madisetti) at 732:25-733:18, 747:3-12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Green
`
`
`Red
`
`
`
`
`
`183
`
`
`
`188
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`188
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDX-0011C.091 (citing CX-154C at 1, 5, 15). He offered his opinion that the “first shape”at
`
`
`
`the surface of the LEDs and before is different from the “second shape” afteri.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tr. (Madisetti) at 732:25-733:18, 747:3-12. Hetestified at the hearing: “So youcan see clearly
`
`with our naked eye that the shapes before=. whichis the first shape, and the second
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shape, which is afteri. are different.” Jd. at 733:15-17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple arguesthat this limitation is not infringed for two reasons: (1) the “first shape”
`
`emitted by the LEDsis not the same“first shape” enteringi: and )iii” is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to change the “first shape” into a “second shape.” RIB at 164-73; RRB at 81-88.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`These twoissues are addressed separately below:
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`
`
`
`“first shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple argues that the plain language of the claim requires the “first shape” of the light
`
`
`
`emitted at the LEDsto be the same“first shape”ofthe light recerved byiim. RIB at 164-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`65. Apple points to Figure 7A, where there is no gap between the emission oflight at LED 702
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the light diffuser 704 where the light is received. JX-009 at 10:65-11:2, Fig. 7B; see Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Sarrafzadeh) at 1112:22-1113:10. Apple engineer Dr. Venugopaltestified that the LEDsin the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accused Products “have a square shape” and emit light that “is square in shape.” Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Venugopal) at 830:4-5, 830:19-22. He further explained that the light emitted from the LEDs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“spreads significantly in all direction[s] based on the physics of the LED surface and spreads
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`towards the microlens array and assumesa generally circular shape.” Jd. at 830:25-831:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s expert Dr. Sarrafzadeh offered opinions that are consistent with Dr. Venugopal’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony, identifying the square shape of light emitted from the LEDs, which “changes to more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a circular shape, as expected by Lambertian emission.” Tr. (Sarrafzadeh) at 1115:2-15. He
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`described the shape of the light at the LEDs as “more of a square shape-ish” and “a concave
`
`
`184
`
`189
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`189
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`polygon.” /d. at 1115:25-1116:11. He described the shapeofthe light receivedby as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“more of a closerto a circle shape” and a “convex polygon.” Jd. Relying on “fundamentals of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`geometry,”he testified that “concave polygons are fundamentally different from convex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`polygons.” Jd. He offered his opinion that “the shape that is emitted at the surface of LED is
`
`
`
`fundamentally different from the shape that is received by|=f as we saw in the three
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examples, and we know that because of physics.” /d. at 1116:23-1117:8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainants disagree with Apple’s interpretation of this claim language, arguing that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the designation of the “first shape” in the claims does not require that the shape be unchanged
`
`
`
`between the LEDs andi. CIB at 186. Complainants submit that the specification only
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discusses changes in shape caused by the “beam shaper”that receives light from the LEDs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`before reaching the user’s skin. See JX-009 at 7:42-56. Complainants identify a gap between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the light emitter and the beam shaperdepicted in Figure 3 of the specification, arguing that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s interpretation of the claim language would exclude this embodiment. CIB at 187; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JX-009 at Fig. 3. Dr. Madisetti reviewed the disclosures in the specification and offered his
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opinion that the claims “do not require the material to receive light in the same shape that was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emitted by the LEDs.” Tr. (Madisetti) at 746:13-747:2. Complainants argue that the “first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shape”is any shape emitted from the LEDs in between the LEDs and the material. See CRB at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`110 (“In the claims, the ‘first shape’ refers to any shape of light emitted by the LEDs before the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed ‘material’ changesit into a second shape.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In consideration of the parties’ arguments, the undersigned finds that the language of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim 1 does not require that the emitted light has the same “‘first shape”at the surface of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEDsas it has at the surface of the “material configured to change the first shape into a second
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shape.” Thefirst limitation of the claim provides that the LEDsare “configured to emitlight in a
`
`
`185
`
`190
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`190
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`first shape,” but the term “emit” is not necessarily limited to the surface of the LEDs. Thereis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light “emitted” from the LEDs described in several other limitations of the claim—light that has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`been changed into a second shape1s described as “light emitted from one or moreofthe plurality
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oflight-emitting diodes,” and certain light that is affected by the light block is also described as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting diodes.” See JX-009 at 15:38-41, 15:54-57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, while Apple has offered a plausible interpretation of the claim languageto refer to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the shape oflight at the surface of the LEDs,it is clear from other limitations of the claim that
`
`
`
`the term “emit” is not limited to this meaning.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’745 patent supports this interpretation of the “first shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limitation. Whendescribing the Figure 3 embodiment that is shown with a gap between the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emitter and the light diffuser, the specification providesthat “[t]he light diffuser 304 receives the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`optical radiation emitted from the emitter 302 and spreads the optical radiation over an area.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JX-009 at 7:42-44, Fig. 3. The same languageis used in the context of Figure 7A, which does
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not show a gap between the emitter and the light diffuser: “The light diffuser 704 receives the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`optical radiation emitted from the emitter 702 and homogenously spreads the optical radiation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`over a wide, donut-shaped area.” Jd. at 10:65-11:2, Fig. 7A. In both embodiments the light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“emitted from” the LEDsis the light received at the light diffuser, which takes this light and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`spreads it into a wide shape. The spreading and/or shaping oflight by the light diffuseris
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`68 Claim 15 also refersto light that has passed through a light diffusing material as “light emitted from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one or moreof the plurality of light-emitting diodes,” andcertainlight that is affected by the light block is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also described as “light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting diodes.” See JX-009 at 16:44-63.
`
`
`
`
`186
`
`191
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`191
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`emphasizedin the specification,™ and there is no discussion in the specification of the shape of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the light at the surface of the LEDs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned thus finds that the reading of the “first shape”limitation that most
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the inventionis that the light emitted by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEDsin a “first shape” refers to the shape ofthe light that is received by the lightdiffuser,i.e.
`
`the claimed “material,” which is “configured to changethe first shape into a second shape.””””
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned thus finds that both Complainants’ and Apple’s proposed constructions are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incorrect. The “first shape” does notrefer to “any” shape of the light between the LEDsand the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light diffuser, as proposed by Complainants (see CRB at 110), and there is no separate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requirementthat the shapeof the light at the surface of the LEDs be the sameas the shape ofthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light that is received by the light diffuser, as proposed by Apple. Accordingly, there is no basis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for Apple’s non-infringement argumentregarding the “first shape.”
`
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`
`
`“second shape”
`
`With respect to the “second shape,” Apple submits that is not configured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`change the shape ofthe light passing through it. RIB at 170-73; RRB at 86-87. Dr. Venugopal
`
`
`
`sited ttas
`
`
`a Tr. (Venugopal) at 831:4-9. With respect to the shape ofthe light passing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`toutIseaa
`
`
`
`
`a Id. Reviewing Dr. Madisetti’s imagesofthe light before and after
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`® The specification describes “the disclosed systems, devices and methods to implement three-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dimensional (3D) pulse oximetry in which the emitted light irradiates a larger volume oftissue at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`measurementsite 102 as compared to the 2D point optical source approach,” whichis described as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“conventional pulse oximetry.” JX-009 at 6:21-25, 5:41-43, Fig. 1, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 The cases that Apple cites regarding antecedent basis are consistent with this construction, see RIB at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`164, because the two limitations of the claimrefer to the same “first shape.”
`
`
`
`187
`
`
`
`192
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`192
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Dr. Sarrafzadeh offered his opinion that these were the same shape: “the input to Peas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shapes are more orless a circular form, and as they exit they are also moreorless a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circular form.” Tr. (Sarrafzadeh) at 1118:1-11. Dr. Sarrafzadeh acknowledgesthat there are
`
`“dark spots” in the= images, but he explains that these are variations in intensity rather
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`than shape. Jd. at 1119:24-1120:4. Apple further argues that Dr. Madisetti failed to explicitly
`
`
`
`analyze the difference between the “first shape” before and the “second shape”after
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE. RIB at 172-73.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In reply, Complainants cite Dr. Madisetti’s testimony that there is a change in shape
`
`
`
`between the images before and afteri. See Tr. (Madisetti) at 747:3-12; CDX-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0011C.091. Complainants dispute Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s analysis of the dark spots in Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`images and arguethat there is no support for his testimony that intensity variations are not a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`change in shape. CRB at 115. Complainants cite the ’745 patent specification’s discussion of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circle and donutas distinct shapes, arguing that a shapeis not solely defined by its perimeter.
`
`JX-009 at 10:65-11:2. Complainants argue that the difference in shape before and after
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is “self-evident,” and “readily apparent.” CIB at 194; CRB at 118.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In consideration of the parties’ arguments, the undersigned finds that Complainants have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`failed to carry their burden to prove infringement with respect to the “second shape”limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned agrees with Apple that Dr. Madisetti’s analysis with respect to this limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wasunreliable and conclusory. See RIB at 160-62. His primary infrmgement analysis compared
`
`
`
`the imagesofthe light at the LEDs with imagesoflight afteri. see Tr. (Madisetti) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`733:5-18; CDX-0011C.077, but as discussed above,the relevant “first shape” is immediately
`
`beforeIT. becauseit is iim that must be configured to change the light from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“first shape”to the “second shape.” When Dr. Madisetti compared imagesoflight immediately
`
`188
`
`
`
`193
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`193
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`before and afteri. he only offered conclusory testimony that “you can clearly see that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the shape changes.” Tr. (Madisetti) at 747:3-12; CDX-0011C.091. Complainants rely onthis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony and argue that the difference between the shapesis “self-evident” or“readily
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`apparent.” CIB at 194: CRB at 118. Apple disputes Complainants’ contentions, however, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Sarrafzadeh describes the shapes of the two sets of images as “moreorless circular,” with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shapesthat are “relatively the same.” Jd. at 1118:1-24.
`
`
`
`Input toM exit from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RDX-0007.144C (citing CX-03071C).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned finds that neither Dr. Madisetti nor Dr. Sarrafzadeh have disclosed a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reliable methodology for identifying shapes or determining whetherone shapeis different from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`another. Their testimony at hearing comparing the “first shape” images to the “second shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`images was conclusory and unreliable, with Dr. Madisetti failing to even identify the allegedly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`different shapes that he observed. Indeed, on cross-examination, Dr. Madisetti was presented
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with several shape outlines and wasasked for his opinion on whether the shapes were the same
`
`
`
`189
`
`
`
`194
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`194
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or different. Tr. (Madisetti) at 782:6-783:12. Despite Complainants’ argumentthat changes in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shape are “self-evident,” Dr. Madisetti could not offer an opinion as to whethercertain atleast
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`somewhat different images represented a change in “shape.” Jd. (stating that he could not say
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whether RDX-12.3 and RDX-12.5 showed a change in shape); see also id. at 1384:23-1385:10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(indicating that images in RDX-12.5 were known to him from his own testing). Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inability to compare such shapes underscores the lack of any reliable methodology in his
`
`
`
`
`infringement analysis. See RIB at 168-69.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, the ’745 patent specification describes shapes that are “substantially
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rectangular, square, circular, oval, or annular, among others.” JX-009 at 3:12-14: see also id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8:9-12 (“a predefined geometry (e.g., a rectangle, square, or circle)”). Another part of the
`
`specification describes “‘a wide, donut-shaped area.” Jd. at 10:65-11:2.”” Dr. Madisetti did not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use any such descriptors to identify shapes in his images of the emitted light in Accused
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Products—heonly offered conclusory opinions that certain shapes were “different” or observing
`
`
`
`7! The specification indicatesthat that a diffuser may provide a “defined area shape”only in some
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`embodimentsof the invention. See JX-009 at 3:5-14 (“In certain embodimentsof the present disclosure,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the diffuser comprises glass, ground glass, glass beads, opal glass, or a microlens-based, band-limited,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`engineered diffuser that can deliver efficient and uniform illumination. In some embodiments, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diffuser isfurther configured to define a surface area shape by which the emitted spreadlightis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`distributed onto a surface of the tissue measurementsite. The defined surface area shape can include, by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`way of non-limiting example, a shape that is substantially rectangular, square, circular, oval, or annular,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amongothers.”’). This language also indicates thatlight diffusion, in itself, does not necessarily provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`changes in “shape.” This is reflected in claim 15 of the ’745 patent, which is asserted for domestic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`industry (as part of dependent claim 18) but not for infringement, requiring a “light diffusing material”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`without any limitations regarding the shapeofthe light. Jd. at 16:36-17:3.
`
`
`
`® All of these references to shapesin the specification refer to the “second shape”after the light diffuser.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which is projected on to the skin. There is no discussion ofthe “first shape”of light before the light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diffuser, except in the context ofpriorart “point optical sources,” wherein the measurementsite is an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“irradiated circular area ofthe point optical source.” JX-009 at 5:54-0, Fig.1.
`
`
`
`
`
`190
`
`
`
`195
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`195
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`“changes” between images. See Tr. (Madisetti) at 733:5-18, 747:3-12.”7 The undersigned agrees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with Complainants that there are differences in the emitted light before and afteri.” but
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainants have failed to present sufficient credible evidence that these differences represent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`two different “shapes.” A preponderanceof the evidence does not support a finding that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accused Products meetthis limitation.
`
`In addition, there is no evidence in the record that Apple configuredI to change
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the shape of the light. Dr. Venugopaltestified that for the Apple Watch Series 6 was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ces
`
`| Tr. (Venugopal) at 826:13-829:14. Apple engineering documents corroborate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Venugopal’s testimony—showing that Apple considered(ener
`
`
`
`
`
`
`il RX-089SC at 317. Complainants are not required
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to prove intent with respect to an apparatus claim, but the Apple engineering documents in the
`
`
`
`record are consistent with Dr. Venugopal’s testimony that light passing through
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`es 1. (Vexsopal) at
`
`
`
`831:4-9. It is Complainants’ burden to prove thati is configured to change the emitted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light from a first shape to a second shape, and a preponderance of the evidence does not support
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a finding that the Accused Products meetthis limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`% Although it is not clear that he applied any reliable methodology, Dr. Sarrafzadeh was more willing to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`describe specific shapes in the images of the Accused Products, such as “a square shape,” “square
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shape-ish,”“closer to a circle shape,” or “more orless a circular form.” Tr. (Sarrafzadeh) at 1115:17-
`
`1118:11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`™ Onevisible difference between the imagesis the pattern oflight and dark spots in the “second shape”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`images. See CX-0307iC at 10-21. Dr. Sarrafzadehstated that the images have “light there, but the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cameras don’t show them” due to camera “deficiencies.” Tr. (Sarrafzadeh) at 1118:4-8, 1119:24-1120:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s testing showsthat thereis light in the dark spots when viewed with a lowerintensity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`threshold. CX-0307iC at 11 (images showingnodark spots with “intensity threshold at 0.05”); see RRB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 86-87. In any case, it is unclear whether such spots indicate a change in “shape.”
`
`
`
`
`191
`
`196
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`196
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`d.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element [1C]: “a plurality of photodiodes configured to detect at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`least a portion of the light after the at least the portion ofthe light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`passes through the tissue, the plurality of photodiodes further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to output at least one signal responsive to the detected
`
`light”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no dispute that each of the Accused Products has four photodiodes configured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detectlight after it passes through a user’s tissue, outputting signals responsive to the detected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light. See CIB at 196-77: see Tr. (Madisetti) at 733:19-734:15; CDX-0011C.078 (citing CX-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1548C (Apple Watch Series 7 photograph) at 37; CX-1646C (Apple Watch Series 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`photograph); CX-0059C (Apple Watch Series 7 CAD drawings) at 2; CX-0057C (Apple Watch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Series 6 CAD drawings); CX-0281C (Block Dep. Tr.) at 7:21-72:5; CX-0297C (Venugopal Dep.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tr.) at 95:5-96:11; CX-0299C (Waydo Dep.Tr.) at 28:22-29:8). The evidence of record shows
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that this limitation is met.
`
`e.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element [1D]: “a surface comprising a dark-colored coating, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`surface configured to be positioned between the plurality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`photodiodes and the tissue when the physiological monitoring
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device is in use, wherein an opening defined in the dark-colored
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`coating is configuredto allow atleast a portion of light reflected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the tissue to pass through the surface”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no dispute that each of the Accused Products has a surface with a dark-colored
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`coating positioned between the photodiodes and the user’s skin, with openings above each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`photodiode allowinglight to pass through. See CIB at 197; Tr. (Madisetti) at 734:16-735:18;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDX-0011C.079 (citing CX-0070C (Apple Watch Series 7 Specification) at 5; CX-0068C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Apple Watch Series 6 Specification) at 5; CX-0297C (Venugopal Dep.Tr.) at 188:16-189:1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`192:14-194:15; CX-0291C (Mehra Dep.Tr.) at 105:20-106:14, 111:19-112:8); see also Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Bloc