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
`
`DECLARATION OF JACK GOLDBERG
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01299
`U.S. Patent 7,761,127
`
`DECLARATION OF JACK GOLDBERG
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Jack Goldberg, am making this declaration at the request of Patent
`
`Owner Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) in the matters of the Inter Partes Review
`
`Nos. IPR2022-01299 and IPR2022-01300 of U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127 (“the ’127
`
`patent”). I understand that this declaration is being submitted in each of these
`
`proceedings as Exhibit 2051.
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`3.
`I am an electrical engineer, and I have more than 45 years of experience
`
`working with various types of sensors, as well as the thermal management of
`
`electronic components, including sensors and components used in medical devices.
`
`Exhibit 2052 is a copy of my curriculum vitae.
`
`4.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973 and my
`
`Master of Science degree in the same field from MIT in 1978. From 1973 to 1984 I
`
`worked as an electrical engineer at various companies and on various technologies.
`
`From 1984 to 1995, when I was an engineer at a medical device company, IVAC
`
`Corporation, I worked extensively designing medical devices which incorporated
`
`-1-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`sensors, the processing of signals produced by sensors, and the calibration of such
`
`sensors. During that time, I also researched, and in some cases developed, other
`
`medical device technologies, including the non-invasive measurement of cardiac
`
`output, various technologies for non-contact determination of fluid flow rate,
`
`microwave sensing of fluid composition, non-invasive measurement of blood
`
`glucose, and both infrared and conventional clinical thermometers. In regard to
`
`projects at IVAC, heat flow and thermal management were of particular importance
`
`in the design and calibration of clinical thermometers and in the development of a
`
`unique technology for non-contact sensing of fluid flow. In 1995, I founded my
`
`present company, Metrionix, Inc., at which I have provided engineering and
`
`consulting services
`
`focusing on sensors, control, measurement, medical
`
`instrumentation, signal processing, RF technology, communications, audio, and
`
`acoustics. My consulting work has included research and development for medical
`
`instrument manufacturers and miniature human implantable devices and associated
`
`sensing means. As a result of my education and experience, I have expertise in the
`
`design of medical sensors and in the sensing, management, and control of thermal
`
`energy in various types of electromechanical systems, including medical devices.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`5.
`I am an electrical engineer by training and profession. The opinions I
`
`express in this Declaration involve the application of my knowledge and experience
`
`-2-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`to the evaluation of the ’127 patents and certain prior art to that patent. My
`
`knowledge of patent law is that of a lay person, albeit one who is an inventor on
`
`numerous issued U.S. patents and has consulted on patent infringement cases, and
`
`thus, has had some experience relevant to patent law. Therefore, counsel have
`
`provided me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The
`
`paragraphs below express my understanding of the principles related to patentability
`
`that I must apply, and have applied, in conducting my analyses and reaching the
`
`opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that, in assessing the patentability of a patent claim, the
`
`Patent Office generally construes claim terms by giving them their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as they would have been understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention in view of the intrinsic record
`
`(patent specification and file history). However, I understand that the inventors may,
`
`in the patent specification, expressly define a claim term to have a meaning that
`
`differs from the term’s ordinary and customary meaning. I also understand that the
`
`inventors may disavow or disclaim certain claim scope, thereby departing from the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, when the intrinsic record demonstrates that a clear
`
`and unambiguous disavowal or disclaimer has occurred. I understand that extrinsic
`
`evidence, such as relevant technical literature and dictionaries, may be useful in
`
`ascertaining how a POSITA would have understood a claim term, but the intrinsic
`
`-3-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`record is the primary source for determining the meaning of claim terms. For the
`
`purposes of this review, and to the extent necessary, I have interpreted each claim
`
`term in accordance with the principles set forth in this paragraph.
`
`7.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable as “anticipated”
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art reference discloses every limitation of the
`
`claim, arranged as in the claim. I understand that a prior art reference does not
`
`anticipate a claim, however, when it discloses multiple, distinct teachings that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that anticipation has not been alleged in the Petition, and,
`
`thus, is not at issue in this proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the following factors, which are sometimes
`
`referred to as the Graham factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and (4) “objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness,” also referred to as secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`Those objective indicia include considerations such as whether a product covered by
`
`the claims is commercially successful due to the merits of the claimed invention,
`
`-4-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`whether there was a long felt need for the solution provided by the claimed invention,
`
`whether others failed to find the solution provided by the claimed invention, whether
`
`others copied the claimed invention, and whether there was acceptance by others of
`
`the claimed invention as shown by praise from others in the field.
`
`9.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is appropriate prior art if it
`
`is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have come to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his or her problem. If a prior-art reference relates
`
`to the same problem as the claimed invention, it is appropriate to use the reference
`
`in an obviousness analysis.
`
`10. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`-5-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`11.
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill to
`
`modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that an assessment of what a reference discloses or
`
`teaches—for purposes of an anticipation analysis or an obviousness analysis—must
`
`be conducted from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention. In
`
`other words, a reference discloses or teaches a claim limitation if a POSITA would,
`
`at the relevant time, interpret the reference as expressly, implicitly, or inherently
`
`disclosing the claim limitation. I further understand that a reference does not need
`
`to use the exact language of the claim to disclose a claim limitation.
`
`-6-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART
`13. The relevant field of art is devices and sensors for the non-invasive
`
`measurement of physiological parameters, such as carboxyhemoglobin.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’127 patent
`
`is determined as of March 1, 2005, which is the earliest effective filing date of the
`
`patent. I also understand that Apple has not alleged that the ’127 patent is entitled
`
`to an effective filing date other than March 1, 2005.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that Apple has proposed the following definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) with respect to the ’127 patent:
`
`For purposes of this IPR, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) would
`have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline
`emphasizing the design of electrical and thermal technologies, in
`combination with training or at least one to two years of related work
`experience with capture and processing of data or information,
`including physiological monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the
`person could have had a Master of Science degree in a relevant
`academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in
`the same discipline.
`
`Pet., 7-8.
`
`16.
`
`I disagree with Apple’s definition because it would require a POSITA
`
`to have a degree in an academic discipline emphasizing both electrical and thermal
`
`technologies. I am not aware of such an academic discipline being available at the
`
`relevant time. However, a POSITA’s training or work experience would have
`
`-7-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`included thermal management of electrical systems. Accordingly, in my view, the
`
`correct definition of a POSITA is as follows:
`
` A POSITA at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of
`Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of
`electrical systems, in combination with training or at least one to two
`years of related work experience with thermal management of electrical
`systems and capture and processing of data or information, including
`physiological monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the person could
`have had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline
`with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.
`
`I applied my definition of a POSITA in my analysis set forth in this declaration.
`
`However, I alternatively applied Apple’s definition of a POSITA and determined
`
`that my opinions are the same under either definition. Specifically, as explained
`
`fully below, in my opinion the challenged claims of the ’127 patent would not have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA under either my definition or Apple’s definition.
`
`17.
`
`I understand the capabilities of a POSITA as of March 2005. Indeed, I
`
`possessed those capabilities myself before, during, and after that time. As an
`
`electrical engineer for over four decades, with significant experience working with
`
`sensors and thermal management of sensors, I understand the level of knowledge
`
`and skill that a POSITA would have possessed in March 2005. Through my
`
`experiences, I am familiar with what a POSITA would have understood regarding
`
`non-invasive physiological measurement devices at the relevant time.
`
`-8-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`IV. THE ’127 PATENT
`A.
`Pulse Oximetry
`18. The ’127 patent relates generally to physiological sensors that emit light
`
`at multiple wavelengths into a patient’s tissue and detect the light after it has been
`
`attenuated by the tissue to determine physiological parameters of the patient. Pulse
`
`oximetry is one example of a technology that uses such physiological sensors. See
`
`EX1001, 2:14–45.
`
`19. Pulse oximetry systems non-invasively determine
`
`the oxygen
`
`saturation levels of an individual’s arterial blood. During respiration, oxygen in the
`
`lungs binds with hemoglobin molecules within blood. See generally DESIGN OF
`
`PULSE OXIMETERS, Webster J.G (ed.) (1997) (“Webster”) (EX2053), 6-10. The
`
`circulatory system transports that oxygen saturated blood through the human body
`
`through arteries. Id. The surge of blood flow entering the arteries causes a pulse
`
`(referred to as the pulsatile flow of blood), whereas venous blood returning from the
`
`capillaries is largely nonpulsatile. Id. Pulse oximetry technology relies on
`
`differences in light absorption of oxygen-bound and oxygen-unbound hemoglobin.
`
`Id., 13-14.
`
`-9-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`20. A typical pulse oximeter includes red and infrared (IR) light-emitting
`
`diode (LED) emitters and one or more photodiode detectors.1 Id., 34-36. Pulse
`
`oximetry determines oxygen saturation by comparing the light absorbance of
`
`oxygenated hemoglobin and deoxygenated hemoglobin at
`
`two different
`
`wavelengths. Id., 13-14. Bright red oxygenated blood absorbs light differently than
`
`dark red deoxygenated blood. Id., 40-46. The ratio of light absorbed at red
`
`wavelengths compared to light absorbed at infrared wavelengths indicates the
`
`percentage of hemoglobin carrying oxygen. Id. That is known as oxygen saturation.
`
`21. As the blood flow pulsates, it changes, or modulates, the light
`
`absorption. Id., 14. The pulse oximeter tracks the changes in light absorbance as
`
`the blood pulsates. Id., 34.
`
`22. The ’127 patent describe two ways to track the changes in light
`
`absorbance as the blood pulsates: transmittance and reflectance. EX1001, 5:23-41.
`
`Because light both transmits through tissue and backscatters or reflects back after
`
`entering tissue, pulse oximeter sensors can operate either by transmittance or
`
`reflectance. That is, for pulse oximeter sensors operating by transmittance, the
`
`
`1 The light sources in most claims of the ’127 patent are not limited to LEDs.
`
`However, because light-based physiological sensors often use LEDs, and for
`
`conciseness, I refer to the light sources as LEDs.
`
`-10-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`detector (sometimes referred to as a photodiode) and emitter are on opposite sides
`
`of the tissue at the measurement site. See also EX2053, 36. For pulse oximeter
`
`sensors operating by reflectance, a detector is placed on the same side as the emitters.
`
`Id. Both methods are illustrated below.
`
`
`
`23. Light traveling through the measurement site is absorbed by various
`
`substances such as skin pigmentation, bones, tissue, and the arterial and venous
`
`blood. Id., 46-47. The resulting light absorption at the detector also varies due to
`
`the blood volume change of arterial blood. The detector(s) generate an output signal
`
`proportional to the intensity of the detected light. The illustration below shows
`
`detected signals corresponding to two different light sources.
`
`24. LEDs have been commonly used in pulse oximeter sensors. However,
`
`other light sources have also been utilized, including laser diodes. According to the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”)2 and understood by a
`
`POSITA, the light emitted by an LED is not light of a single wavelength
`
`(monochromatic), but includes a narrow band of wavelengths characterized by a
`
`peak wavelength. Unlike laser light, which is monochromatic, LED light has a
`
`spectral shape, such as shown below in the figure below, which is Fig. 10A of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,758,644 (“the ’644 patent”) (EX2026), assigned to Masimo. In Figure
`
`10A, the x-axis is the wavelength of light (“λ”) and the y-axis is the intensity of light.
`
`The emission spectrum 440 of Figure 10A is an example of narrowband emission
`
`with an approximately Gaussian spectral shape.
`
`
`2 “LEDs are moderately narrowband emitters with an approximately Gaussian
`spectral shape. The spectrum of an LED is often expressed by a single wavelength,
`with four different single-wavelength descriptions in general use. The most common
`spectrum-based description is the peak wavelength, λp, which is the wavelength of
`the peak of the spectral density curve. Less common is the center wavelength, λ0 5m,
`which is the wavelength halfway between the two points with a spectral density of
`50% of the peak. For a symmetrical spectrum, the peak and center wavelengths are
`identical. However, many LEDs have slightly asymmetrical spectra. Least common
`is the centroid wavelength, λc, which is the mean wavelength. The peak, center, and
`centroid wavelengths are all derived from a plot of Sλ(λ) versus λ. The fourth
`description, the dominant wavelength, λd, is a colorimetric quantity that is described
`in the section on color. It is the most important description in visual illumination
`systems because it describes the perceived color of the LED.” A. V. Arecchi, T.
`Messadi, and R. J. Koshel, Field Guide to Illumination, SPIE Press, Bellingham,
`WA (2007) (EX2054), page 26.
`
`-12-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`
`
`EX2026, Fig. 10A. Also shown below are similar emission spectra from two LED
`
`datasheets, including a red LED manufactured by Fairchild Semiconductor and
`
`available at the time of filing of the ’127 patent, and another LED incorporated
`
`within an integrated circuit specifically intended for pulse oximetry applications,
`
`OSRAM’s model SFH7050, Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
`
`FIG. 2: Excerpt from p. 3 of Fairchild Semiconductor “Double Heterojunction
`AlGaAs Low Current Red LED Lamps,” datasheet DS300012, Feb. 27, 2001
`(EX2055)
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`
`
`FIG. 3: Excerpt from p. 11 of OSRAM SFH7050 Ver 1.1 Datasheet, Apr. 20, 2016
`(EX2056)
`
`25. The peak wavelength shown in both Figure 2 and Figure 3 is near 660
`
`nm, a wavelength in the range commonly used for the measurement of blood oxygen
`
`saturation. See, e.g., EX2026, 8:34-43. Further, both Figures 2 and 3 and the
`
`specifications accompanying those figures in their respective datasheets note that the
`
`peak wavelength shown is at an ambient temperature of 25oC and at a specific drive
`
`current. A POSITA would also understand that the term “nominal wavelength” as
`
`used in the ’127 patent refers to peak wavelength of the emitter’s emission spectrum
`
`when measured under certain specific conditions, such as at a given drive current
`
`and at a given ambient temperature. See, e.g., EX1001, 8:28-30; 8:35-39 (the
`
`emission spectrum of an LED is “centered around a nominal wavelength”).
`
`-14-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`26. An accurate measurement by a light-based sensor such as a pulse
`
`oximeter relies on the system knowing the wavelength of light emitted by each of
`
`the LEDs during the actual physiological measurement process. Each LED is
`
`designed and manufactured to emit light of a specific “nominal” or “centroid”
`
`wavelength when measured under certain conditions. For example, a red LED may
`
`have a nominal wavelength of 660 nm and an infrared LED may have a nominal
`
`wavelength of 905 nm. See EX1001, 7:43–8:10, Table 1 (showing LEDs with
`
`multiple nominal wavelengths). However, under operating conditions, the actual
`
`“operating” wavelength of an LED may vary from its nominal wavelength. For
`
`example, an LED’s operating wavelength varies with the LED’s junction
`
`temperature. See id., 6:60–62 (operating wavelength determined as function of
`
`temperature). The junction temperature of an LED is the temperature at the “p-n
`
`junction” of the LED, which is the junction between positive and negative
`
`semiconductor regions of the LED. An LED’s operating wavelengths also varies
`
`with the drive current supplied to the LED. See id., 2:62-65. Significant wavelength
`
`shift caused by temperature variation could produce inaccurate results in a light-
`
`based sensor that does not compensate for wavelength shift.
`
`-15-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`B.
`The Claimed Invention
`27.
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Mohamed Diab, which I understand
`
`is being submitted as Exhibit 2001 in these IPRs. That declaration sets forth
`
`Masimo’s development process of the invention claimed in the ’127 patent.
`
`28.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`29.
`
`30.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`31.
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Each claim of the ’127 patent includes a thermal mass disposed within
`
`the substrate thermally coupled to the LEDs and a temperature sensor. The
`
`temperature sensor measures a temperature that the sensor uses to estimate the
`
`-19-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`operating wavelengths of all LEDs. EX1001, 10:22-48. All independent claims but
`
`claim 20 recite that the measured temperature is a “bulk temperature.” The ’127
`
`patent explains the thermal mass stabilizes the bulk temperature “so that the
`
`thermistor measurement of bulk temperature is meaningful.” Id., 10:67-11:4. In the
`
`context of the ’127 patent, the bulk temperature is meaningful because it allows
`
`reliable estimation of the LED operating wavelengths. Id., 10:32-39, Claim 7. The
`
`invention allows the measurement of carboxyhemoglobin, “oxygen saturation[,] and
`
`pulse rate with increased accuracy or robustness.” EX1001, 5:5-22.
`
`34. A POSITA would understand the ’127 patent’s disclosure that the
`
`thermal mass stabilizes the bulk temperature “so that the thermistor measurement of
`
`bulk temperature is meaningful” (id., 10:67-11:4) to be consistent with Mr. Diab’s
`
`explanation that the bulk temperature of the thermal mass is not constant or uniform
`
`and it correlates with but does not perfectly track LED temperatures. Indeed, a
`
`POSITA would understand that the bulk temperature of the thermal mass needs to
`
`change (i.e., it cannot be constant) to correlate with (but not perfectly track) the LED
`
`temperatures to be a “meaningful” measurement for reliably estimating LED
`
`wavelengths. A POSITA would further understand that the thermal mass would not
`
`have a uniform temperature because, during operation, the multiple LEDs will inject
`
`heat into different locations of the thermal mass and the heat will be distributed over
`
`-20-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`time such that temperature variations at different portions of the thermal mass are
`
`inevitable.
`
`35. As Diab explains, and as a POSITA would understand in view of the
`
`specification, for the claimed invention to work, the thermal mass needs to be
`
`properly designed so that the measured bulk temperature of the thermal mass can be
`
`used to reliably estimate the operating wavelengths of the LEDs. Proper design
`
`involves achieving a balance between conducting heat energy from the LEDs to the
`
`thermistor so that the measured temperature will track changes to LED temperature
`
`and storing heat energy so that the measured temperature will not fluctuate too much
`
`and be inaccurate. A circuit board that stores too much or too little heat energy or
`
`that is too thermally conductive or not thermally conductive enough would not
`
`function as the claimed thermal mass. Accordingly, even if off-the-shelf multi-layer
`
`metallized circuit boards were available for use in a light-based sensor, a POSITA
`
`would not expect such an off-the-shelf circuit board to act as the claimed thermal
`
`mass.
`
`36. The Examiner allowed the claims of the ’127 patent over prior-art pulse
`
`oximeters that used temperature sensors to compensate for wavelength shift but did
`
`not measure a bulk temperature of a thermal mass. One prior-art pulse oximeter the
`
`Examiner analyzed in detail is Cheung. Shown below is an annotated figure from
`
`Cheung.
`
`-21-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 11 (annotated). A POSITA would understand this figure as showing
`
`a temperature sensor 50 and LEDs 40, 42 mounted to a substrate (the component in
`
`blue) that has some mass disposed within it. Cheung alleges that its temperature
`
`sensor when used with a coding resistor can be used to accurately determine the
`
`LEDs wavelengths. EX1007, 13:20-33. However, the Examiner found that Cheung
`
`does not have a thermal mass disposed within a substrate. EX1002, 73. Thus,
`
`Cheung’s temperature sensor cannot measure a bulk temperature of a thermal mass.
`
`Indeed, Cheung expressly discloses that its temperature sensor measures the ambient
`
`temperature of the sensor assembly. EX1007, 13:26-27, 19:31-33.
`
`-22-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`37. Despite asserting accuracy, because Cheung lacked the claimed thermal
`
`mass and measured ambient temperature instead of the bulk temperature of the
`
`thermal mass, Cheung could not have achieved the superior accuracy that has driven
`
`the commercial success of Masimo’s rainbow® sensors. Indeed, multiple prior-art
`
`references, including Webster (describing Cheung) and Huiki, discouraged the use
`
`of temperature sensors as unreliable and encouraged the use of alternative methods
`
`known to be more reliable. Accordingly, without taking advantage of hindsight in
`
`view of the Masimo inventors’ extensive research and development of a properly
`
`designed thermal mass, a POSITA could not reasonably have expected that
`
`measuring a bulk temperature of a thermal mass and using the measured bulk
`
`temperature to estimate multiple LED operating wavelengths would produce a
`
`reliable result.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“thermal mass” (claims 1, 7, 13, 20, and 26)
`38.
`I was asked to assess the meaning of “thermal mass,” as used in claims
`
`1, 7, 13, 20, and 26, to a POSITA. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand
`
`“thermal mass” to be a mass that provides a bulk temperature that can be used to
`
`reliably estimate LED wavelengths. The claim language and specification of the
`
`’127 patent support my opinion.
`
`-23-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`39. The claims that recite a “thermal mass” also recite a “temperature
`
`sensor thermally coupled to the thermal mass.” In my view, the thermal coupling of
`
`the temperature sensor to the thermal mass would suggest to a POSITA that the
`
`temperature sensor measures a temperature of the thermal mass. Further, the claims
`
`indicate that the measured temperature is a “bulk temperature,” as summarized
`
`below:
`
` Claims 1 and 26 recite that the thermal mass “stabilize[s] a bulk
`
`temperature” and the LED “wavelengths are determinable as a function of
`
`… the bulk temperature.”
`
` Claim 7 recites a “temperature sensor” that measures “a bulk temperature
`
`for the thermal mass” and “the operating wavelengths [are] dependent on
`
`the bulk temperature.”
`
` Claim 13 recites “determining a plurality of operating wavelengths of the
`
`light emitting sources dependent on a bulk temperature.”
`
` Claim 20 and its dependent claim 21 recite “indicating an operating
`
`wavelength for each of the plurality of light emitting sources” and
`
`“wherein the indicating step comprises measuring a bulk temperature.”
`
`The foregoing claim language supports that the claimed “thermal mass” provides a
`
`bulk temperature that can be used to reliably estimate LED wavelengths.
`
`-24-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`40. The specification describes several aspects of the “thermal mass,”
`
`including that the thermal mass is:
`
` within the substrate (EX1001, Fig. 12)
`
` disposed proximate the emitters so as to stabilize a bulk temperature for
`
`the emitters (id., 10:24-26)
`
` thermally coupled to a temperature sensor that provides a bulk temperature
`
`so that the wavelengths are determinable as a function of the drive currents
`
`and the bulk temperature (id., 10:26-31)
`
` relatively significant so as to stabilize and normalize the bulk temperature
`
`so that the thermistor measurement of bulk temperature is meaningful (id.,
`
`10:67-11:4).
`
`41. The specification also describes an embodiment in which “substantial
`
`metallized areas” provide the “thermal mass.” Id., 11:10-13. The annotated
`
`drawings below, based on Figures 14 and 18 of the ’127 patent, depict inner layers
`
`with metallized areas that stabilize a bulk temperature. Id.
`
`-25-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`
`See id., Figs. 14, 18 (annotated).
`
`42. The ’127 patent also discloses that LEDs are mounted to a component
`
`end of one side of the substrate and a thermistor is mounted to the component end
`
`of the other side:
`
`
`
`See id., Figs. 15 & 16 (annotated). The LEDs are mounted on component pads and
`
`wire bond pads. Id., 11:16-20. Substrate layers have traces that electrically connect
`
`the component pads and wire bond pads to the connectors 1532-1534. Id., 11:25-
`
`
`
`-26-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01299
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01299 & IPR2022-01300
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`28. The thermistor is also mounted to pads. Id., 11:28-30. Plated thru holes
`
`electrically connect the connector pads on the component and solder sides. Id.,
`
`11:31-33. Thus, the inner layers, LEDs and thermistor are thermally coup
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
