IPR2022-01299
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
