`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01299
`U.S. Patent 7,761,127
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF WILLIAM P. KING, Ph.D.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are 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.
`
`Dated: 19 October 2023
`
`By:
`
`William P. King, Ph.D.
`
`-1-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`1.
`I, William P. King, Ph.D., am making this declaration at the request of
`
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) in the matter of the Inter Partes
`
`Review No. IPR2022-01299 of U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127 (“the ’127 patent”). I
`
`understand that this declaration is being submitted in this proceeding as Exhibit
`
`2194.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted the declaration that is Exhibit 2151 in this IPR.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to my own knowledge and expertise and the materials
`
`identified in Exhibit 2151, I have reviewed and considered the following written
`
`materials in conducting the analyses and forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`Exhibit or
`Paper No.
`46
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`Description
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0279949 A1
`(“Oldham”)
`
`“Red, Green, and Blue LEDs for White Light Illumination,”
`IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 8,
`No. 2, March/April 2002, pp. 333-338 (“Muthu”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0230765 A1
`(“Dry”)
`
`-1-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`Exhibit or
`Paper No.
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0259182 A1
`(“Man”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,986 (“Littleton”)
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Brian W. Anthony
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`
`
`I.
`LIMITED SCOPE OF THIS DECLARATION
`I understand that this declaration is limited to responding to Apple’s
`
`5.
`
`and Dr. Anthony’s reply arguments related to the additional references of Exhibits
`
`1050-1054. Consistent with this limited scope, in connection with this declaration,
`
`I have not conducted supplemental analysis of the information and opinions set
`
`forth in my Exhibit 2151 declaration, including information and opinions related to
`
`(1) my qualifications and professional background, (2) my understanding of
`
`relevant legal principles, (3) the state of the art prior to the ’127 patent, (4) the
`
`invention of the ’127 patent, (5) the file history of the ’127 patent, (6) claim
`
`construction, (7) scientific principles including heat transfer principles, and (8) the
`
`teachings of the prior art. In view of the limited scope of this declaration, I do not
`
`respond herein to every assertion made by Apple in its Reply or by Dr. Anthony in
`
`his Reply declaration. My not responding to an assertion of Apple or Dr. Anthony
`
`should not be interpreted to mean that the assertion is correct or that I agree with
`
`the assertion.
`
`-2-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`II. ANALYSIS OF APPLE’S NEW REFERENCES
`A. Oldham
`6.
`In my Exhibit 2151 declaration, I testified:
`
`Some devices used temperature sensors as a thermostatic control in
`wavelength-shift-reduction systems.
` For example, U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. US 2005/0279949 A1 to Oldham, which
`Apple submitted as Exhibit 1010 in non-instituted IPR2022-01300,
`uses a temperature sensor to control active heating and cooling
`devices (such as heaters and fans) to heat up or cool the LEDs based
`on the temperature reading of the temperature sensor to attempt to
`maintain target LED temperatures or operating wavelengths.
`EX2151 ¶40. That testimony accurately describes Oldham and its disclosure of an
`
`example of a device that used a temperature sensor “as a thermostatic control in
`
`wavelength-shift-reduction systems.” In its Petition in IPR2022-01300 (which I
`
`understand was not instituted), Apple similarly described Oldham as “a
`
`temperature regulation system to control heating and cooling of LEDs such that
`
`their operating temperatures are stabilized within an acceptable temperature
`
`range.” IPR2022-01300 Pet., 9-10. Apple also explained to the Board that, while
`
`the combinations presented in the Petition in this IPR2022-01299 case “describe
`
`temperature sensing for purposes such as … compensating for temperature
`
`fluctuations of LEDs,” the combinations including Oldham presented in the
`
`-3-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`IPR2022-01300 Petition “describe active temperature regulation for LEDs in an
`
`oximetry environment.” Paper 3, 3.
`
`7.
`
`Apple’s Petition in this IPR2022-01299 case does not rely on Oldham
`
`for any purpose, much less as a reference that allegedly discloses or makes obvious
`
`the “thermal mass” or “bulk temperature” limitations. In this case, Apple first
`
`relied on Oldham in its Reply. Thus, this declaration is my first chance to respond
`
`to Apple’s and Dr. Anthony’s new unpatentability arguments relying on Oldham.
`
`8.
`
`I reviewed the entire disclosure of Oldham (including but not limited
`
`to the portions Apple and Dr. Anthony rely on) to assess whether Oldham would
`
`have motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on
`
`the teachings of Chadwick” in a manner that yields the claimed invention of the
`
`’127 patent. In my opinion, Oldham would not have motivated a POSITA to make
`
`that combination, as explained below.
`
`9.
`
`Apple and Anthony specifically rely on Oldham’s Paragraph 39
`
`disclosure that its “temperature regulating system can adjust a monitored
`
`temperature of the LED to compensate for any thermal masses intervening between
`
`the LED and the temperature sensor and to thus derive, calculate, or estimate an
`
`operating temperature.” Reply, 17; EX1055 ¶36 (both citing EX1050 ¶39). In my
`
`view, a POSITA could not reasonably interpret that passage as suggesting that
`
`Oldham’s “thermal masses” have the appropriate temperature-change resistance or
`
`-4-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`stabilization of bulk temperature for estimating LED wavelengths. In my view, Dr.
`
`Anthony’s contrary interpretation of that passage is not grounded in basic heat
`
`transfer principles and the plain meaning of descriptions in Oldham.
`
`10. As I previously testified, the term “thermal mass” is not a precise
`
`technical term of art with a universal meaning in all contexts. Rather, engineers
`
`and product designers use “thermal mass” to refer to a mass that performs a
`
`specific desired thermal function. In the design of electronic systems and circuit
`
`boards, a thermal mass is a mass that performs a desired thermal function for the
`
`specific circuit board being designed. As such, a POSITA would have carefully
`
`examined the context of a patent or other publication that uses the term “thermal
`
`mass” to understand what desired function the thermal mass is intended to serve to
`
`assess the meaning of the term in the context of the patent or publication. A
`
`POSITA would expect different patents or publications to use “thermal mass” to
`
`refer to different things. Oldham’s usage of “thermal mass” in contrast to the ’127
`
`patent’s usage of “thermal mass” is an excellent example of two different
`
`publications using the same term to mean different things. In my view, Dr.
`
`Anthony failed to account for the different contexts in which Oldham and the ’127
`
`patent use “thermal mass,” leading Dr. Anthony to erroneously conclude that
`
`Oldham’s reference to “thermal masses” refers to the same thing that the ’127
`
`patent describes as a “thermal mass.”
`
`-5-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`11. Oldham Paragraph 39 refers to the “temperature regulating system”
`
`referenced in Paragraph 38, which “can maintain the operating temperature of the
`
`LED such that the operating temperature does not change appreciably.” EX1050
`
`¶¶38-39. In fact, the “temperature regulating system” of Oldham “can maintain
`
`these components at a constant temperature.” Id. ¶31. Oldham describes how a
`
`temperature sensor can be used to control active heating and cooling components,
`
`such as heaters, fans, or Peltier devices, to maintain the constant temperature. Id.
`
`¶¶24-25. In view of this context, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`“thermal masses” referenced in Paragraph 39 are not designed to facilitate the
`
`temperature regulating system’s thermal function of maintaining various system
`
`components at a constant temperature. In fact, a POSITA would have understand
`
`that the “thermal masses” interfere with that function because they introduce
`
`measurement error into the “monitored temperature of the LED.” Id. ¶39. Thus,
`
`the temperature regulating system must “compensate for any thermal masses
`
`intervening between the LED and the temperature sensor” in order to correct the
`
`measurement errors caused by the thermal masses themselves. Id. The thermal
`
`masses are not designed to compensate for or correct measurement errors. The
`
`thermal masses are the intervening objects that cause the measurement errors that
`
`require compensation or correction.
`
`-6-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`12. Oldham Paragraph 52 confirms that Oldham uses “thermal mass”
`
`differently than the ’127 patent. Paragraph 52 uses “thermal mass” broadly to refer
`
`to any object, “such as air,” that can affect heat transfer. EX1050 ¶52. Therefore,
`
`the multiple “thermal masses” referenced in Paragraph 39 are all of the intervening
`
`masses—including air—that potentially interfere with an accurate “monitored
`
`temperature of the LED.” EX1050 ¶39. Again, Oldham must “compensate for”
`
`the thermal masses to correct temperature-measurement errors. Id. Oldham does
`
`not use any of the thermal masses to resist temperature change on an appropriate
`
`scale to stabilize a bulk temperature for estimating LED wavelengths.
`
`13. Apple also relies on Oldham Paragraph 41. Reply, 17. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that Paragraph 41 discloses an alternative embodiment that
`
`is not the temperature regulating system described by many paragraphs in Oldham,
`
`including Paragraphs 24-25, 31, and 38-39. Paragraph 41 does not use the phrase
`
`“temperature regulating system” or provide connections with the temperature
`
`regulating system disclosed in other paragraphs. Indeed, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Paragraph 41 discloses using a temperature for a different
`
`purpose—namely, temperature compensation to adjust for wavelength shift—than
`
`the function of maintaining various components at constant temperature performed
`
`by the temperature-regulating-system embodiments. Moreover, Paragraph 41
`
`discloses the general concept of temperature compensation in the same level of
`
`-7-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`detail disclosed by Cheung and Huiku. Specifically, Paragraph 41 discloses using
`
`a temperature sensor to monitor “the temperature of the LED” and adjustment data
`
`including LED coefficients to compensate for wavelength shift. Oldham does not
`
`teach using a thermal mass to resist temperature change to stabilize a bulk
`
`temperature for estimating LED wavelengths. Further, in my view, a POSITA
`
`could not reasonably interpret Oldham as suggesting such a thermal mass in view
`
`of its teaching that “thermal masses” are objects that interfere with accurate
`
`temperature measurements, and, thus, must be compensated for to correct errors.
`
`14. Apple also cites Oldham Paragraphs 24-25, 34, and 38. Reply, 18.
`
`However, as I explained above, these paragraphs refer to the temperature-
`
`regulating-system embodiments that maintain various system components at a
`
`constant temperature. For example, Paragraph 34 teaches a “heat exchange
`
`pathway” to “keep various system components at substantially the same
`
`temperature.” EX1050 ¶34. In my view, this form of “temperature stability”—
`
`maintaining constant temperature across the entire system—is not the temperature-
`
`change resistance or stabilization of a bulk temperature for estimating LED
`
`wavelengths required by the “thermal mass” limitation. Further, Oldham does not
`
`teach or suggest using any component of Paragraph 34’s “heat exchange pathway”
`
`as a thermal mass for resisting temperature change or stabilizing a bulk
`
`-8-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`temperature for facilitating the temperature compensation discussed in Paragraph
`
`41.
`
`15. Accordingly, Oldham would not have suggested to a POSITA that “a
`
`thermal core … based on the teachings of Chadwick” would resist temperature
`
`change or stabilize a bulk temperature to facilitate estimating LED wavelengths.
`
`Apple failed to prove a motivation to combine Yamada with Chadwick in a manner
`
`that yields the claimed invention.
`
`B. Muthu
`16.
`I reviewed the entire disclosure of Muthu (including but not limited to
`
`the portions Apple and Dr. Anthony rely on) to assess whether Muthu would have
`
`motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on the
`
`teachings of Chadwick” in a manner that yields the claimed invention of the ’127
`
`patent. In my opinion, Muthu would not have motivated a POSITA to make that
`
`combination, as explained below.
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, even if a POSITA would have had a general desire to
`
`improve the accuracy of Yamada’s physiological measurements, the POSITA
`
`would not have turned to Muthu for guidance. Muthu says nothing about
`
`improving physiological sensors. Instead, Muthu is about maintaining the visual
`
`appearance of white light produced by LEDs “in the general illumination market.”
`
`EX1051, 333. A POSTIA would understand that illumination and physiological
`
`-9-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`sensors are very different applications and would require very different designs. In
`
`my view, a POSITA desiring to improve physiological sensors would have relied
`
`on the numerous references directed specifically to physiological sensors, such as
`
`Cheung, Noguchi, Webster, and Huiki. A POSITA would not have disregarded the
`
`teachings of the more pertinent physiological-sensor references and instead
`
`followed the teachings of consumer-lighting literature such as Muthu.
`
`18. Further, in my opinion, even if a POSITA would have considered
`
`Muthu, Muthu does not teach or suggest using a thermal mass to resist temperature
`
`change or stabilize a bulk temperature for estimating LED wavelengths. Muthu
`
`recognizes that changes “in temperature of the LED pn junction leads to changes in
`
`light output, wavelength, and spectral width.” EX1051, 335. However, Muthu
`
`teaches that it “is not practical to directly measure the junction temperature of the
`
`LED, and, therefore, the temperature of the heatsink on which the LEDs are
`
`mounted is measured.” Id. While Muthu teaches measuring heatsink temperature
`
`out of practical necessity, it does not disclose or suggest that the heatsink
`
`temperature accurately represents LED junction temperature or that the heatsink
`
`resists temperature change or stabilizes a bulk temperature to improve LED-
`
`wavelength estimation. Indeed, the same paragraph that discloses heatsink-
`
`temperature measurement points out that problems with that technique introduce
`
`“significant errors.” Id.
`
`-10-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`19. Further illustrating those problems, Muthu’s Figure 8 shows that
`
`Muthu’s temperature-compensation technique has very poor performance as
`
`measured by “product yield,” or the percentage of products that meet an acceptable
`
`level of accuracy.
`
`
`
`EX1051, Fig. 8. Muthu explains that “less than 20% of products will have a color
`
`error of less than 0.005” and concludes: “It is clear that this control scheme will
`
`not achieve the performance required for illumination applications.” Id., 337. In
`
`my opinion, the unacceptable performance of Muthu’s temperature-compensation
`
`scheme indicates that Muthu’s heat sink is not a “thermal mass” that resists
`
`temperature change or stabilizes a bulk temperature for estimating LED
`
`wavelengths.
`
`-11-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`20. Accordingly, Muthu is consistent with Webster’s and Huiku’s
`
`teachings that using an ambient temperature or a temperature on the substrate for
`
`estimating LED wavelengths is an unreliable technique. Muthu strengthens my
`
`opinion that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`C. Dry
`21.
`
`I reviewed the entire disclosure of Dry (including but not limited to
`
`the portions Apple and Dr. Anthony rely on) to assess whether Dry would have
`
`motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on the
`
`teachings of Chadwick” in a manner that yields the claimed invention of the ’127
`
`patent. In my opinion, Dry would not have motivated a POSITA to make that
`
`combination, as explained below.
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, even if a POSITA would have had a general desire to
`
`improve the accuracy of Yamada’s physiological measurements, the POSITA
`
`would not have turned to Dry for guidance. Dry says nothing about improving
`
`physiological sensors. Instead, Dry is about conducting heat away (i.e., cooling)
`
`“LED light sources as sources of illumination.” EX1052 ¶¶4, 6. In my view, a
`
`POSITA desiring to improve physiological sensors would have relied on the
`
`numerous references directed specifically to physiological sensors, such as
`
`Cheung, Noguchi, Webster, and Huiki. A POSITA would not have disregarded the
`
`-12-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`teachings of the more pertinent physiological-sensor references and instead
`
`followed the teachings of consumer-lighting references such as Dry.
`
`23. Further, in my opinion, even if a POSITA would have considered Dry,
`
`Dry does not teach or suggest using a thermal mass to resist temperature change or
`
`stabilize a bulk temperature for estimating LED wavelengths. Dry discloses a
`
`temperature sensor used to monitor LED temperatures and to control a cooling
`
`device to prevent overheating of the LEDs. EX1052 ¶¶6, 32, 34. Specifically, Dry
`
`discloses a “light source” that “may be used as a decorative lighting element or
`
`may be utilized as a general illumination device.” EX1052 ¶32. The light source
`
`“includes an elongate thermally conductive member or heat sink 101.” Id. The
`
`heat sink is a tube “formed of a material that provides excellent thermal
`
`conductivity” and is “configured to provide convective heat dissipation and
`
`cooling.” Id. A “medium” such as “air” moving through the heat sink “provides
`
`cooling.” Id. The lighting device also includes a “[c]ontroller 300 … coupled to a
`
`temperature sensor that is disposed on light source 100 so as to monitor the
`
`temperature of the light emitting diodes 109. Controller 300 is utilized to control
`
`the rate of cooling provided by cooling device 199.” Id. ¶34. The LEDs are
`
`cooled in this manner to prevent “degradation or destruction” of the LEDs. Id. ¶6.
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, Dry would not have provided any motivation for a
`
`POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on the teachings of
`
`-13-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`Chadwick” to yield the claimed invention. Dry is about monitoring and controlling
`
`LED temperatures to prevent damage to the LEDs caused by overheating. At
`
`most, Dry would have motivated a POSITA to emphasize the cooling functions
`
`already disclosed in Yamada and Chadwick. As I testified previously, cooling
`
`LEDs to prevent overheating is different from using a thermal mass to resist
`
`temperature change or stabilize a bulk
`
`temperature for estimating LED
`
`wavelengths. Indeed, successful LED cooling would eliminate or reduce
`
`wavelength shift and any need to compensate for wavelength shift. Moreover, Dry
`
`says nothing at all about estimating LED wavelengths, let alone using a thermal
`
`mass to resist temperature change or stabilize a bulk temperature to facilitate
`
`estimating LED wavelengths.
`
`D. Man
`25.
`
`I reviewed the entire disclosure of Man (including but not limited to
`
`the portions Apple and Dr. Anthony rely on) to assess whether Man would have
`
`motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on the
`
`teachings of Chadwick” in a manner that yields the claimed invention of the ’127
`
`patent. In my opinion, Man would not have motivated a POSITA to make that
`
`combination, as explained below.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Apple has not established that Man is prior art to the
`
`’127 patent. In addition, Man does not teach or suggest using a thermal mass to
`
`-14-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`resist temperature change or stabilize a bulk temperature for estimating LED
`
`wavelengths. Man discloses:
`
`In one embodiment of the present invention, a temperature sensor is
`configured to measure the junction temperature of the light-emitting
`elements in the arrays, wherein the single temperature sensor is
`strategically positioned to detect the operating temperature of all
`colours of light-emitting elements. For example, in one embodiment,
`the light-emitting elements can be mounted on a common thermally
`conductive substrate upon which the temperature sensor is mounted.
`EX1053 ¶45. Man then immediately questions the accuracy of that embodiment:
`
`In an alternative embodiment, separate temperature sensors can be
`configured to measure the temperature of each colour of light-emitting
`element individually. In this manner a more accurate measure of the
`junction temperature of each colour of light-emitting element colour
`can be determined.
`Id. ¶46. In view of these contrasting embodiments, a POSITA would have
`
`understood Man as suggesting that its single-temperature-sensor technique may not
`
`be a reliable way to estimate the junction temperature of multiple LEDs.
`
`27. Accordingly, Man is consistent with Webster’s and Huiku’s teachings
`
`that using an ambient temperature or a temperature on the substrate for estimating
`
`LED wavelengths is an unreliable technique. Man strengthens my opinion that the
`
`prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`-15-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`E. Littleton
`28.
`I reviewed the entire disclosure of Littleton (including but not limited
`
`to the portions Apple and Dr. Anthony rely on) to assess whether Littleton would
`
`have motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core … based on
`
`the teachings of Chadwick” in a manner that yields the claimed invention of the
`
`’127 patent. In my opinion, Littleton would not have motivated a POSITA to
`
`make that combination, as explained below.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, even if a POSITA would have had a general desire to
`
`improve the accuracy of Yamada’s physiological measurements, the POSITA
`
`would not have turned to Littleton for guidance. Littleton says nothing about
`
`improving physiological sensors. Instead, Dry is about using LEDs to emulate
`
`“night sky illumination conditions” such as a “full moon.” EX1054, 2:4-7. In my
`
`view, a POSITA desiring to improve physiological sensors would have relied on
`
`the numerous references directed specifically to physiological sensors, such as
`
`Cheung, Noguchi, Webster, and Huiki. A POSITA would not have disregarded the
`
`teachings of the more pertinent physiological-sensor references and instead
`
`followed the teachings of astronomy references such as Littleton.
`
`30. Further, in my opinion, even if a POSITA would have considered
`
`Littleton, Littleton does not teach or suggest using a thermal mass to resist
`
`temperature change or stabilize a bulk
`
`temperature for estimating LED
`
`-16-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`wavelengths. Littleton is like Dry in that it uses a temperature sensor to control a
`
`cooler that maintains LEDs at a desired temperature. EX1054, 3:7-22. In
`
`Littleton, the LEDs are maintained at a constant temperature to produce the desired
`
`illumination conditions. Id. Therefore, in my opinion, Littleton would not have
`
`provided any motivation for a POSITA to combine Yamada with “a thermal core
`
`… based on the teachings of Chadwick” to yield the claimed invention.
`
`Maintaining LEDs at a constant temperature, as Littleton does, would also
`
`maintain constant LED wavelengths, thereby eliminating any need to estimate
`
`LED wavelengths. Moreover, Littleton does not disclose or suggest using a
`
`thermal mass to resist temperature change or stabilize a bulk temperature to
`
`facilitate estimating LED wavelengths.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`31. Apple asserts in its Reply that my opinion that the prior art teaches
`
`away from the claimed invention “overlooked more pertinent teachings in the prior
`
`art.” Reply, 17. However, as explained above, the new references Apple
`
`submitted with its Reply would not have motivated a POSITA to combine Yamada
`
`with “a thermal core … based on the teachings of Chadwick” to yield the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`32. Apple also misrepresents my deposition testimony, asserting:
`
`King admitted in deposition that he had not accounted for Oldham’s
`additional teachings of the very concept that he assumed was
`
`-17-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`unknown to a POSITA—i.e., a temperature measured from a thermal
`mass to facilitate temperature/wavelength estimation of multiple
`LEDs.
`Reply, 17 (citing EX1057, 155:5-162:15). I never admitted, in the portion of
`
`deposition testimony cited by Apple or elsewhere, that Oldham discloses
`
`“temperature measured from a thermal mass to facilitate temperature/wavelength
`
`estimation of multiple LEDs.” EX1057, 155:5-162:15. In fact, as explained
`
`above, Oldham does not disclose such subject matter.
`
`33.
`
` Apple also misrepresents my deposition testimony by asserting that I
`
`conceded I might have changed my opinion if I had considered the portions of
`
`Oldham Apple cites. Reply, 18 (citing EX1057, 152:15-155:4). Apple never
`
`asked whether those portions of Oldham would have changed my opinion. It asked
`
`a hypothetical question whether prior art teaching measurement of a single
`
`thermal-mass temperature to estimate multiple LEDs would have changed my
`
`opinion. EX1057, 153:22-154:19. I responded I may have reconsidered some
`
`aspects of my declaration if I had been aware of such prior art. Id. But I was not
`
`aware of such prior art, and Apple did not submit such prior art with the Petition.
`
`Accordingly, my opinion has not changed that the claims of the ’127 patent would
`
`not have been obvious in view of the prior-art combinations Apple raised in the
`
`Petition. Moreover, as explained above, Apple also did not submit with its Reply
`
`any prior art disclosing or suggesting the measurement of a bulk temperature of a
`
`-18-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`thermal mass for estimating LED wavelengths. Thus, after analyzing the new prior
`
`art references Apple submitted with its Reply, my opinion has not changed that the
`
`claims of the ’127 patent would not have been obvious in view of the prior-art
`
`combinations Apple raised.
`
`57305672
`
`-19-
`
`MASIMO 2194
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`