throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01291, IPR2022-01465
`USS. Patent 10,687,745
`
`DECLARATIONOF R. JAMES DUCKWORTH
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSES
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledgeare true and
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinionsin the future to respond to any
`arguments or positions Apple may raise, taking account of new information asit
`
`becomesavailableto me.
`Dated: 5/26/ Zov3
`
`fe
`S.
`
`
`
`R. James Duckworth, Ph.D.
`
`MASIMO 2070
`
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I, R. James Duckworth, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is R. James Duckworth, Ph.D. I have been retained by
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, counsel for Patent Owner Masimo
`
`Corporation (“Masimo”). I previously submitted two declarations in IPR2022-
`
`01291 and IPR2022-01465, both of which concern the ’745 Patent. Both
`
`declarations are labeled Exhibit 2002 in their respective IPRs. I expressly
`
`incorporate by reference my original declarations, EX2002 in IPR2022-01291 and
`
`EX2002 in IPR2022-01465, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`2.
`
`I am providing this supplemental declaration to provide additional
`
`opinions relating to IPR2022-01291 and IPR2022-01465. I may refer to my original
`
`declarations throughout this supplemental declaration. I will refer to my original
`
`declaration in IPR2022-01291 as EX2002-1291 and to my original declaration in
`
`IPR2022-01465 as EX2002-1465.
`
`3.
`
`I have continued to apply the legal standards provided to me by counsel
`
`as set forth in my original declarations.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In paragraphs 3-6 of Exhibit 2002-1291 and in paragraphs 3-5 of
`4.
`
`Exhibit 2002-1465, I listed the materials I considered with respect to my original
`
`-1-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`declarations. In connection with this declaration, I have considered those materials
`
`
`
`and further considered the following materials:
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2071
`
`Transcript of March 24, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Brian W. Anthony
`
`2072
`
`Excerpt of Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001)
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`2075
`
`2076
`
`2077
`
`2078
`
`2079
`
`2080
`
`Encyclopedia Britannica, Light, the visible spectrum,
`https://www.britannica.com/science/light (last visited May 19, 2023)
`
`Nonconfidential Excerpt of Page 65 from June 6-10, 2022 Hearing
`Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc., ITC Inv. No 337-TA-
`1276
`
`February 13, 2023 Respondent Apple Inc.’s Response to Complainants’
`Petition for Review (Public Version), filed in Masimo Corp. et al. v.
`Apple Inc., ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Brian Land from June
`6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc., ITC
`Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Dr. Paul Mannheimer
`from June 6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple
`Inc., ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Dr. Stephen Waydo
`from June 6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple
`Inc., ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Dr. Vivek Venugopal
`from June 6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple
`Inc., ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0289C – Designated Portions of
`February 10, 2022 Deposition of Paul Mannheimer
`
`-2-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2081
`
`2082
`
`2083
`
`2084
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0299C – Designated Portions of
`February 18, 2022 Deposition of Stephen Waydo
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0295C – Designated Portions of
`February 11, 2022 Deposition of Tao Shui
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0007C – Email from Brian Land
`to Paul Mannheimer et al.
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0175C – Apple Organization
`Chart
`
`2085
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0177C – Apple Presentation
`
`2086
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-0185C – Apple Presentation
`
`2087
`
`2088
`
`2089
`
`2090
`
`2091
`
`Kim, Gina, “Masimo Wants $3B From Apple Over Smartwatch IP, Jury
`Told.” Law360, April 5, 2023
`(https://www.law360.com/articles/1593689/masimo-wants-3b-from-
`apple-over-smartwatch-ip-jury-told)
`
`ITC Exhibit CX-1616 – Fowler, Geoffrey, “The new Apple Watch says
`my lungs may be sick. Or perfect. It can’t decide.” Washington Post,
`September 23, 2020 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/202
`0/09/23/apple‐watch‐oximeter/)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-1793C – Apple Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Exhibit CX-1800C – Email from Adrian
`Perica to Steve Hotelling, et al.
`William, Andrews, “Fitbit Update Lets You Quickly Check Your Blood
`Oxygen Saturation.” Forbes, Sept. 9, 2020
`(https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewwilliams/2020/09/09/fitbit-
`update-lets-you-quickly-check-your-blood-oxygen-
`saturation/?sh=5d6ecb55e76a)
`
`2092
`
`“Track Your SpO2 to Uncover Changes in Your Wellbeing,” Fitbit,
`Sept. 7, 2020 (https://blog.fitbit.com/track-your-spo2/)
`
`2093
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ITC Final Initial Determination
`
`-3-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EX1036
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Ueyn Block from June
`6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc., ITC
`Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`EX1037
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – Transcript of Testimony of Saahil Mehra from
`June 6-10, 2022 Hearing Transcript, Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc.,
`ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1276
`
`EX1038
`
`ITC Exhibit RX-0335
`
`EX1039
`
`ITC Exhibit RX-0504
`
`EX1040
`
`ITC Exhibit RX-0508
`
`EX1041
`
`ITC Exhibit RX-0632
`
`
`
`In addition to the exhibits listed above, I have also considered Masimo’s Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Responses in these IPRs, the Institution Decisions in these IPRs,
`
`all other documents that Apple produced in response to Masimo’s Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery, the parties’ public Petitions for Review of the Final Initial
`
`Determination and the parties’ public Responses to those Petitions in the
`
`Investigation, and to the extent not listed here, any other documents that I cite in this
`
`declaration.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`For purposes of this declaration, I have continued to apply the definition
`5.
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) that Apple proposed. See
`
`EX2002-1291 at ¶¶ 31-32. I have been informed and understand that obviousness
`
`must be evaluated from the perspective of a POSITA as of the effective filing date
`
`-4-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`of the ’745 Patent. I have been informed and understand that the effective filing date
`
`
`
`of the ’745 Patent is July 2, 2015, based on the earliest priority date of the ’745
`
`Patent. My analysis and opinions are based on the perspective of a POSITA as of
`
`the effective filing date of the ’745 Patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Independent Claims 1 and 20 both require “a plurality of light-emitting
`6.
`
`diodes configured to emit light in a first shape” and a “material configured to change
`
`the first shape into a second shape.” In my opinion, the claim language, the
`
`specification, the prosecution history, and the parties’ agreements in the ITC
`
`Investigation all support a construction of the phrase “change the first shape into a
`
`second shape” that includes that the “second shape” must be a “a shape different
`
`from the first shape.” In other words, the claims require a material that is configured
`
`to change the first shape into a shape different from the first shape.
`
`7.
`
`First, a POSITA reading the claim’s plain language would have
`
`understood that the phrase requires the material to “change the first shape into a
`
`second shape.”1 The requirement that there be a “change” would indicate to a
`
`POSITA that the second shape must be different than the first shape. I note this is
`
`
`1 All emphases are added unless stated otherwise.
`
`-5-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`consistent with the common meaning of the word “change,” which is “[t]o make
`
`
`
`different.” See EX2072.
`
`8.
`
`Second, the specification also indicates to a skilled artisan that the claim
`
`phrase required that the second shape must be different than the first shape. As I
`
`explained previously, the specification contains several examples of a material
`
`changing a first shape into a second shape. See EX1001 at 7:63-8:14, 10:65-11:2;
`
`EX2002-1291 at ¶ 36; EX2002-1465 at ¶ 36.
`
`9.
`
`Third, as I explained in my original declarations, I understand that
`
`during prosecution Masimo overcame a prior art rejection that included a lens by
`
`explaining that an analogous claim limitation required a change in the shape of the
`
`emitted light—not just a change in size. See EX2002-1291 at ¶¶ 38-43; EX2002-
`
`1465 at ¶¶ 38-43. As I explained previously, the prosecution history shows that the
`
`“first shape” and “second shape” limitations were claim amendments that Masimo
`
`made to overcome prior art, and that those amendments “reflect a change in shape
`
`of emitted light beyond a change in size, defined over the Examiner’s citation of
`
`judicial notice of emitted light passing through a lens.” See EX2002-1291 at ¶ 42;
`
`EX2002-1465 at ¶ 42. The prosecution history further confirms that the claims
`
`require a change in the shape of the light and that a change in size is not considered
`
`a change in shape. For example, if the first shape of light were a circle, a smaller
`
`-6-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`circle would not be considered a second shape. But a square would be considered a
`
`
`
`different shape than a circle.
`
`
`
`10. Fourth, the ITC also agreed that the “second shape” is “a shape different
`
`from the first shape.” I understand that on January 10, 2023, the ITC issued its Final
`
`Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 in In the Matter of Certain Light-
`
`Based Physiological Measurement Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-1276 (“Investigation”). The ITC construed “second shape,” as used in the claim
`
`phrase, to have its “plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties agree is ‘a shape
`
`different from the first shape.’” EX2093 at 179-180. I understand that after the ITC
`
`issued its Final Initial Determination, Apple confirmed that the ITC applied the
`
`“correct construction” of “second shape,” which is a shape different from the first
`
`shape. EX2075 at 36.
`
`11. Thus, in my opinion, the plain language of the claims, the specification,
`
`the prosecution history, and the parties’ prior agreed-upon plain meaning
`
`construction that was adopted by the ITC, the phrase “change the first shape into a
`
`-7-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`second shape” means that the “second shape” must be “a shape different from the
`
`
`
`first shape.”
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the March 24, 2023 deposition transcript for Apple’s
`
`expert, Dr. Brian Anthony. Based on my review, I believe Dr. Anthony and Apple
`
`interpreted the “second shape” claim limitation in these IPRs in a way that is
`
`materially different than how it was interpreted in the ITC Investigation. Dr.
`
`Anthony admitted that Apple never informed him about the prior constructions
`
`before he signed his IPR declaration. EX2071 at 76:10-16, 79:8-84:10. However,
`
`Dr. Anthony’s testimony shows that he interpreted “second shape” in a way that
`
`differs from the construction Apple previously agreed was the plain meaning. The
`
`ITC Initial Determination stated all parties agreed that “second shape” is “a shape
`
`different from the first shape.” EX2093 at 179-180. But Dr. Anthony refused to
`
`agree that the shapes must be different and instead indicated that he believes the
`
`“first shape” and “second shape” can be the same shape:
`
`Q. Would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand that if a first
`shape has to change into a second shape, second shape has to be
`different than the first shape?
`
`A. I think a person skilled in the art reading this would read it in the
`entire context; such that the shape is changed and the person would also
`understand that the shape that is coming out of the – that the first shape
`is a function of the materials, the arrangement of the lights. The second
`shape is a function of materials, the curvature of the human body. And
`
`-8-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`that there is a first shape and a second shape and they are being changed
`from one to the other. It’s a very degenerate solution to have the exact
`same shape. Doesn’t preclude that it could be. But person skilled in
`the art would know a first shape and a second shape.
`
`EX2071 at 108:9-109:5; see also id. at 104:3-113:6 (refusing to confirm the shapes
`
`must be different). That is not correct. As I explained above, and as Apple
`
`previously agreed, the claims require that the “first shape” and “second shape” be
`
`different. Apple’s Petitions and Dr. Anthony’s declarations do not show, for
`
`example, that their proposed combination of Sarantos and Shie would result in a
`
`“second shape” that is different from the “first shape.”
`
`13. Additionally, as I noted in my original declaration, Apple’s attempt to
`
`equate the “material configured to change the first shape into a second shape” with
`
`a diffuser would eliminate the requirement that the shapes be different. See EX2002-
`
`1291 at ¶¶ 45-46; EX2002-1465 at ¶¶ 45-46. Claims 15 and 19 of the ’745 Patent
`
`further confirm my opinion. Claim 15 recites “a light diffusing material” but does
`
`not require that material to change a first shape into a second shape. Claim 19, which
`
`depends from Claim 15, adds the limitation “wherein the light diffusing material is
`
`configured to change the first shape into a second shape.” See EX1001 at Claims
`
`15, 19. I have been informed and understand that when a dependent claim adds a
`
`particular limitation, there is a presumption that the limitation is not present in the
`
`independent claim. Thus, the claims confirm that a “light diffusing material” does
`
`-9-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`not necessarily, by itself, change a first shape of light into a second shape of light. I
`
`
`
`also understand that the ITC similarly agreed that “light diffusion, in itself, does not
`
`necessarily provide changes in ‘shape.’” EX2093 at 190 n.71.
`
`V. DESCRIPTION OF APPLE’S ASSERTED REFERENCES
`Iwamiya (EX1004)
`A.
`14. U.S. Patent No. 8,670,819 to Iwamiya et al. is titled “OPTICAL
`
`BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION DETECTING APPARATUS AND OPTICAL
`
`BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION DETECTING METHOD.” Iwamiya discloses an
`
`optical sensor built into a wristwatch that can measure “biological information.”
`
`EX1004 at 5:54-67. The only example of “biological information” disclosed in
`
`Iwamiya is a “pulse wave” which measures pulse rate. EX1004 at 9:4-5. Iwamiya
`
`does not mention measurement of oxygen saturation. Iwamiya also identifies a
`
`problem where melanin pigment in the skin can absorb light with a wavelength under
`
`600 nm such that the signal received is too weak to detect a pulse wave. EX1004 at
`
`1:53-2:6. To address that problem, Iwamiya uses a single wavelength of light at 940
`
`nm. Id. at 10:34-43. Iwamiya also teaches the use of an optical filter placed over
`
`the light detector to filter out light with a wavelength under 900 nm to “alleviate[]
`
`an influence from a measurement change due to external light, such as sunlight.” Id.
`
`at 8:38-47.
`
`-10-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Sarantos (EX1005)
`B.
`15. U.S. Patent No. 9,392,946 to Sarantos et al. is titled “HEART RATE
`
`SENSOR WITH HIGH-ASPECT-RATIO PHOTODETECTOR ELEMENT.”
`
`EX1005 at Title. Sarantos teaches improvements to heart rate sensors by using so-
`
`called “high-aspect-ratio” (HAR) photodetector elements which differ from
`
`conventional photodetectors that have a square aspect ratio. Id. at 9:48-10:15.
`
`Sarantos explains that the HAR photodetectors are able to improve light collection
`
`capabilities while still having substantially the same active area as a conventional
`
`square photodetector. See id. at 10:27-50, FIG. 5. Sarantos explains that the
`
`concepts discussed in his patent are “discussed primarily with respect to light sources
`
`that emit green light, e.g., wavelengths in the range of 500 nm to 550 nm, although
`
`it is contemplated that the photodetector element concepts discussed herein may see
`
`similar performance with light sources that emit light predominantly in the 500 nm
`
`to 600 nm range, which includes yellow light as well as some light orange light.”
`
`Id. at 18:35-41. Sarantos also explains that the invention is “not tailored for use in
`
`other spectrums, such as the red or infrared spectra,” which Sarantos noted would
`
`be the wavelengths used for measuring blood oxygenation levels. Id. at 18:44-51.
`
`C. Venkatraman (EX1006)
`16. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0275854 to Venkatraman et
`
`al. is titled “WEARABLE HEART RATE MONITOR” and discloses a pulse rate
`
`-11-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`monitor worn on the wrist. EX1006 at Abstract, FIGS. 2A-2B. I note, however, that
`
`
`
`Venkatraman uses paragraph numbers, but not columns and line numbers. Apple’s
`
`petitions and Dr. Anthony’s declarations cite to Venkatraman using column and line
`
`numbers, which are unclear.
`
`Shie (EX1007)
`D.
`17. U.S. Patent No. 6,483,976 to Shie et al. is titled “OPTICAL ELEMENT
`
`HAVING AN INTEGRAL SURFACE DIFFUSER” and was originally assigned to
`
`Physical Optics Corporation. EX1007 at Title. Shie describes over a dozen different
`
`types of optical elements depicted across 22 figures (counting subfigures). Id. at
`
`FIGS. 1a-11. Shie explains that these various optical elements have a “plurality of
`
`surface micro-structures.” Id. at Abstract. However, Shie does not mention that any
`
`of the various optical structures have applications in a physiological sensor, let alone
`
`a pulse oximeter. See generally id. Nor does Shie explain any benefits that any of
`
`the optical structures might provide in a physiological sensor. Shie has nothing to
`
`do with physiological sensors.
`
`Savant (EX1012)
`E.
`18. U.S. Patent 6,158,245 to Savant is titled “HIGH EFFICIENCY
`
`MONOLITHIC GLASS LIGHT SHAPING DIFFUSER AND METHOD OF
`
`MAKING.” EX1012 at Title. Both Savant (EX1012) and Shie (EX1007) were
`
`originally assigned to Physical Optics Corporation and both list Gajendra Savant as
`
`-12-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`an inventor. The Background of the Invention section in Savant describes a “Light
`
`
`
`Shaping Diffuser™ (LSD®)” as a “transparent or translucent structure having an
`
`entrance surface, an exit surface, and light shaping structures formed on its entrance
`
`surface and/or in its interior.” EX1012 at 1:16-19.
`
`19. However, Savant does not disclose any drawings of any particular
`
`“LSD.” Notably, Savant has no relation to physiological sensors. It does not
`
`describe any physiological sensors, let alone a pulse oximeter, nor does it explain
`
`that an LSD would be used in a physiological sensor or any benefits that an LSD
`
`would provide to a physiological sensor. Rather, the disclosure of Savant focuses
`
`on the manufacturing process for an LSD. See generally EX1012.
`
`VI. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A REASONABLE
`EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS IN MEASURING OXYGEN SATURATION
`AT THE WRIST AND OBJECTIVE
`INDICIA CONFIRMS
`NONOBVIOUSNESS
`20. As explained above, I understand that obviousness is to be assessed as
`
`of the July 2, 2015 effective filing date for the ’745 Patent. As I explained previously
`
`in my original declaration, Claims 9 and 18 require the measurement of oxygen
`
`saturation at the wrist. EX2002-1291 at ¶ 74. Apple’s obviousness arguments do
`
`not demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
`
`expected success in making a device that can measure oxygen saturation from the
`
`wrist as of the effective filing date for the ’745 Patent.
`
`-13-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`In my original declaration, I explained, based on what was publicly
`
`
`
`21.
`
`available in the ITC briefs, that Apple’s engineers expressed skepticism that pulse
`
`oximetry could be performed at the wrist and that others, including Apple itself,
`
`failed for years to develop such a device. See EX2002-1291 at ¶¶ 86-90, 120-121,
`
`177-196. I understand that Apple was ordered to produce certain documents and
`
`testimony from the Investigation in this IPR. I have reviewed the produced
`
`documents and testimony. The produced documents and testimony confirm that a
`
`POSITA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in measuring
`
`oxygen saturation at the wrist as of the ’745 Patent’s July 2, 2015 effective filing
`
`date.
`
`A. Apple’s Highly-Skilled Engineers Expressed Skepticism for Pulse
`Oximetry at the Wrist and Revealed that Others Had Failed
`In late 2014, Apple hired Dr. Paul Mannheimer to begin looking into
`22.
`
`pulse oximetry at the wrist for the Apple Watch. EX2077 at 996:9-997:8. Brian
`
`Land, who is the chief of Apple’s Health Sensing Hardware Group and who led
`
`development of the health sensor hardware in the Apple Watch, testified that
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2076 at 954:15-955:9, 963:5-15; EX2008
`
`at 39:21-25. Mannheimer holds a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering and had spent
`
`over twenty years designing pulse oximeters at one of Masimo’s major competitors,
`
`-14-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`Nellcor, and considered his specialty to be the physio-optics of pulse oximetry. See
`
`
`
`EX2077 at 994:2-25, 1009:1-8; EX2080 at 180:22-181:4.
`
`23. Mannheimer explained that his first assignment at Apple was to
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2080 at 173:9-173:13; see also EX2077 at
`
`996:25-997:5, 1012:12-25. Mannheimer testified,
`
`
`
`internally to my head rolling my eyes, thinking, as I’d thought of it
`
`in the past with other clients, like good luck with that.” EX2080 at 173:14-174:1;
`
`see also EX2077 at 1012:12-25.
`
`174:2-6.
`
`24.
`
` He testified:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
` EX2080 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`EX2080 at 174:7-18; see also EX2077 at 1013:1-6 (same). Mannheimer also
`
`
`
`explained that the products he previously worked on “operated on a much more
`
`vascularized tissue bed, usually fingers or forehead,
`
`but that in contrast, “[t]he wrist is just an incredibly different beast” because
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2077 at 998:21-999:11. It
`
`ultimately took Apple six years,
`
`to develop the
`
`blood oxygen feature. EX2080 at 174:19-175:5.
`
`25. Other Apple engineers also shared Mannheimer’s skepticism for pulse
`
`oximetry at the wrist. Dr. Stephen Waydo is the director of Apple’s team for health
`
`algorithms on the Apple Watch. EX2078 at 919:1-8. Waydo spent four and a half
`
`years working at a medical device startup trying to build a noninvasive glucose
`
`measuring device before working at Apple. Id. at 920:3-6. Waydo testified that his
`
`reaction to receiving the assignment to help develop the blood oxygen feature for
`
`the Apple Watch was “both excited and, I’d say, intimidated.” EX2008, 938:3-12.
`
`Waydo also explained that it was “extremely challenging” to develop the blood
`
`oxygen feature in the Apple Watch and
`
`16. He also testified:
`
`
`
` EX2081 at 165:12-
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`A. The wrist is one of the most difficult places on the body to do almost
`
`every physiological measurement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2081 at 166:4-166:18.
`
`26. Waydo also
`
`testified
`
`that oxygen saturation and pulse rate
`
`measurements are “very different,” and that measuring oxygen saturation requires
`
`solving “a different set of problems.” EX2008 at 937:2-938:24.
`
` EX2078 at 923:24-924:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 924:5-11. Waydo
`
`also explained that his team of
`
` engineers were “just a small piece of the
`
`overall puzzle” but that they spent
`
` just on developing the
`
`algorithm architecture for the oxygen saturation feature, totaling between “20 or
`
`30,000 hours of engineering time.” Id. at 925:23-926:6.
`
`-17-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`27. Another Apple engineer, Dr. Tao Shui, who also helped develop the
`
`
`
`oxygen saturation feature in the Apple Watch, also testified:
`
`
` The watch is worn on the wrist,
`
`and the wrist is well known for its lack of signal.
`
`
`
`
`EX2082 at 108:13-21.
`
`28. Brian Land also testified that
`
`work [] at the wrist, which was unprecedented –
`
`
`
` “we also had to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2076 at 963:19-964:6.
`
` EX2076 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Land also testified
`
`962:25-963:9
`
`EX2080 at 174:19-175:5
`
`-18-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 984:17-21.
`
`29. The testimony from Apple’s experienced engineers, including Apple’s
`
`lead engineer on the oxygen saturation sensor project, mirrors my understanding.
`
`As of 2015, it was my understanding and experience that pulse oximetry
`
`measurements at the wrist were extremely challenging. Indeed, between 2005-2008,
`
`I worked on designing a reflectance pulse oximeter for military and first responder
`
`applications at a company I formed with my colleague, Professor Yitzhak
`
`Mendelson. See EX2002-1291 at ¶¶ 55-58. We ultimately chose the forehead as
`
`the intended measurement site for the pulse oximeter. My understanding at the time
`
`was that other potential measurement sites like the wrist and the finger were not
`
`viable. The finger was not viable because it would have been obtrusive for military
`
`personnel and first responders who need to use their hands. The wrist also was not
`
`viable due to the poor quality of PPG signals obtained there. Thus, the testimony of
`
`Apple’s various engineers is consistent with my own experience and understanding.
`
`Apple’s Petition and Dr. Anthony’s declaration are incorrect in stating that “wrist-
`
`worn pulse oximetry sensors, such as that described in Sarantos, were well-known
`
`in the art.” 1291 Pet. 20; EX1003-1291 at ¶ 48. I further note that Dr. Anthony (and
`
`the Petition) do not identify or cite any examples of the allegedly “well-known”
`
`wrist-worn pulse oximetry sensors. 1291 Pet. 20; EX1003-1291 at ¶ 48.
`
`-19-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B. Apple’s Internal Development Documents Confirm Their
`Engineers’ Skepticism and the Difficulties of Pulse Oximetry at the Wrist
`as of July 2015
`30. Apple’s internal development documents are also consistent with
`
`Apple’s engineers’ testimony during the ITC Investigation. For example, Brian
`
`Land testified
`
`EX2076 at 962:25-963:4.
`
`990:9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See EX2085; EX2076 at 981:19-983:1, 989:21-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2085 at 6.
`
` Id. at 7.
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2085 at 8-9.|
`EX2085 at 8-9.
`
`
`
`-21-
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “Conventional sensing methods do not result in
`
`waveforms that are consistent enough for SpO2 measurements at the wrist.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

` Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` These statements show how actual engineers, who have
`
`significantly more skill than the ordinary level of skill in the art, viewed pulse
`
`oximetry at the wrist
`
`
`
`. This is also consistent with my understanding at the time
`
`that conventional pulse oximetry at the wrist was not feasible and that innovation
`
`was needed.
`
`32. Apple’s documents show
`
` See EX2083.
`
` Id.
`
` Id. at 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. As I noted in paragraphs 188-192 of Exhibit 2002-1291, it was not until
`
`Apple redesigned the optical sensor in the Apple Watch to include a new optical
`
`material called a microlens array (MLA) that changed the shape of light that Apple
`
`was able to achieve pulse oximetry at the wrist.
`
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

` EX2077 at 1020:8-20.
`
`EX2079 at 824:13-23, 826:13-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2085 at 13.
`
`34.
`
` The testimony of Apple’s engineers Dr. Paul Mannheimer, Brian Land,
`
`Dr. Stephen Waydo, Dr. Tao Shui, and Dr. Ueyn Block demonstrate skepticism for
`
`measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist due to challenges with the physiology of
`
`the wrist as of the effective filing date for the ’745 patent and after.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to develop the oxygen saturation sensor for the Apple Watch Series 6. Thus, the
`
`evidence also shows that others, including Apple, failed to achieve oxygen saturation
`
` it ultimately took Apple years
`
`-24-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`measurements at the wrist as of the ’745 Patent’s effective filing date. Given the
`
`
`
`struggles of Apple’s highly-educated and highly-experienced engineers even after
`
`the ’745 Patent’s July 2, 2015 effective filing date, a POSITA with less education
`
`and less experience than Apple’s engineers would not have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in developing a device that measures oxygen saturation at the
`
`wrist as of the ’745 Patent effective filing date. That is consistent with my
`
`understanding at the time that measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist was not yet
`
`feasible. Thus, in my opinion, a POSITA would not have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist at the time of the
`
`’745 Patent.
`
`C. Apple’s “Supplemental Information” Does Not Demonstrate a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success for Measuring Oxygen Saturation at
`the Wrist as of July 2015 or Negate the Objective Indicia of
`Nonobviousness
`I understand that Apple has filed “supplemental information” in the
`35.
`
`IPRs. I understand that Apple identified the “supplemental information” as
`
`testimony from Apple engineers Ueyn Block (EX1036) and Saahil Mehra (EX1037),
`
`and testimony from Apple’s expert witness in the ITC, Dr. Steven Warren, (found
`
`in EX2008, which is a transcript of the public sessions of the entire ITC hearing),
`
`and ITC exhibits RX-0335 (EX1038), RX-0504 (EX1039), RX-0508 (EX1040),
`
`RX-0632 (EX1041). However, neither Apple’s Petition nor Dr. Anthony’s
`
`declaration referenced or made an argument about any of the “supplemental
`
`-25-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`information” and so I do not know how the “supplemental information” relates to
`
`
`
`either the Petition or Dr. Anthony’s declaration. Regardless, I have reviewed the
`
`“supplemental information” and it does not change my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`not have had a reasonable expectation of success in measuring oxygen saturation at
`
`the wrist as of July 2015 or that the objective indicia also discussed above show that
`
`the ’745 Patent claims that require oxygen saturation at the wrist would not have
`
`been obvious.
`
`36. Dr. Block’s testimony further confirms my opinion that a POSITA
`
`would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in measuring oxygen
`
`saturation at the wrist as of the earliest effective filing date of the ’745 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX1036 at 902:13-19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Mehra’s testimony, and it also does not change my
`
`opinion.
`
`
`
`-26-
`
`MASIMO 2070
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6. Thus, in my opinion, Dr. Mehra’s testimony is not relevant to the skepticism or
`
`expectation of success as of the earliest effective filing date of the ’745 Patent’s
`
` EX2008 at 852:1-
`
`invention.
`
`38. Dr. Steven Warren’s testimony and ITC exhibits RX-0504, RX-0508,
`
`and RX-0632 also do not change my opinion. As an initial matter, I understand that
`
`Dr. Warren is not Apple’s expert in these IPRs and also was not Apple’s expert with
`
`respect to the ’745 Patent in the ITC Investigation. In the ITC Investigation, Dr.
`
`Warren presented opinions regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502, and
`
`10,945,648, which are unrelated to the ’745 Patent. I understand, however, that in
`
`the ITC, Dr. Warren tes

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