`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`By: Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No. 63,051)
`Carol Pitzel Cruz (Reg. No. 61,224)
`Daniel Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail:
`AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`U.S. Patent 10,687,745
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF
`APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142, and 319, 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a) and 90.3, and Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
`
`Procedure, Patent Owner Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) hereby appeals to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Judgement – Final
`
`Written Decision (Paper No. 72) entered on February 2, 2024 (Attachment A) and
`
`from all underlying orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions that are adverse to
`
`Masimo related thereto and included therein, including those within the Decision
`
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, entered February 6, 2023 (Paper 15).
`
`Masimo appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims 2–6,
`
`8, 10–12, 14, 17, 19, 21–24, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 are unpatentable,
`
`and all other findings and determinations, including but not limited to claim
`
`construction, obviousness, motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of
`
`success, objective indicia of nonobviousness, as well as all other issues decided
`
`adverse to Masimo’s position or as to which Masimo is dissatisfied in IPR2022-
`
`01465 involving U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745.
`
`Masimo is concurrently providing true and correct copies of this Notice of
`
`Appeal, along with the required fees, with the Director of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office and the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`Dated: March 29, 2024
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`/Daniel Kiang/
`Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No. 63,051)
`Carol Pitzel Cruz (Reg. No. 61,224)
`Daniel Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 72
`Date: February 2, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`ORDER
`Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 3
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Proceedings........................... 3
`B. The ’745 Patent Specification ..................................................... 4
`C. The Challenged Claims of the ’745 Patent ................................... 8
`D. Asserted Prior Art ................................................................... 10
`E. Asserted Grounds ................................................................... 10
`F. Testimonial Evidence .............................................................. 11
`III.
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S GROUNDS ........................... 11
`A. Statement of Law.................................................................... 11
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 12
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................. 14
`D. Ground 1A — Obviousness over Iwamiya and Sarantos .............. 15
`1.
`Iwamiya ............................................................................. 15
`2.
`Sarantos ............................................................................. 18
`3. Claim 2 .............................................................................. 20
`a)
`Scope of Claim 2 ............................................................. 22
`b)
`Iwamiya vs. Claim 2 ........................................................ 24
`c) Dark-Colored Coating ...................................................... 32
`(i) Sarantos vs. Claim 2 — Dark-Colored Coating ................ 32
`(ii) Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition) ......................... 34
`(iii) Patent Owner’s Opposition ........................................... 35
`(iv) Petitioner’s Reply ........................................................ 37
`(v) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply .............................................. 39
`(vi) Analysis and Determination as to Motivation to Combine
`with a Reasonable Expectation of Success .............................. 41
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`d) Two Different Wavelengths (Oxygen Saturation) — Motivation
`to Combine Iwamiya and Sarantos ............................................ 47
`(i) Sarantos vs. Claim 2 — Two Different Wavelengths (Oxygen
`Saturation) ......................................................................... 47
`(1) Sarantos Disclosure .................................................. 47
`(2) Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition) ..................... 48
`(3) Patent Owner’s Opposition ........................................ 48
`(4) Petitioner’s Reply ..................................................... 49
`(5) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply .......................................... 50
`(6) Analysis and Findings as to Sarantos’s Disclosure of Using
`Red and Infrared Light to Determine Oxygen Saturation at the
`Wrist.............................................................................. 50
`(ii) Motivation for Combining Iwamiya and Sarantos to Use Red
`and Infrared Light to Determine Oxygen Saturation at the Wrist 54
`(1) Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition) ..................... 54
`(2) Patent Owner’s Opposition ........................................ 55
`(3) Petitioner’s Reply ..................................................... 57
`(4) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply .......................................... 59
`(5) Analysis and Determination as to Motivation for
`Combining Iwamiya and Sarantos to Determine Oxygen
`Saturation at the Wrist ...................................................... 60
`e) Two Different Wavelengths (Oxygen Saturation) — Reasonable
`Expectation of Success ............................................................ 67
`(i) Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition) ......................... 67
`(ii) Patent Owner’s Opposition ........................................... 67
`(1) The ITC Investigation ............................................... 68
`(2) Patent Owner’s Argument ......................................... 75
`(iii) Petitioner’s Reply ........................................................ 77
`(iv) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply .............................................. 79
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`(v) Analysis and Determination as to Reasonable Expectation of
`Success in Combining Iwamiya and Sarantos to Determine
`Oxygen Saturation at the Wrist ............................................. 84
`(1) Scope of, and Incorporation by Reference in, the Petitioner
`Reply ............................................................................. 84
`(2) Analysis and Determination ....................................... 86
`f) Weighing of Evidence and Conclusion as to Obviousness ..... 99
`4. Claim 6 .............................................................................. 99
`a)
`Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition)............................100
`b) Patent Owner’s Opposition ..............................................102
`c)
`Petitioner’s Reply ...........................................................103
`d) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.................................................105
`e) Analysis and Determination as to Claim 6..........................108
`5. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10–12, and 14 ...............................................111
`E. Ground 1B — Obviousness over Iwamiya, Sarantos,
`and Venkatraman..........................................................................112
`1. Venkatraman .....................................................................112
`2. Claim 4 .............................................................................113
`3. Claim 17 ...........................................................................113
`a)
`Scope of Claim 17 ..........................................................114
`b) Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition)............................117
`c)
`Patent Owner’s Opposition ..............................................120
`d) Petitioner’s Reply ...........................................................122
`e)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.................................................123
`f) Analysis and Determination as to Claim 17 ........................124
`4. Claim 19 ...........................................................................127
`5. Claims 21–24 ....................................................................127
`6. Claim 25 ...........................................................................129
`a)
`Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition)............................130
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`b) Patent Owner’s Opposition ..............................................132
`c)
`Petitioner’s Reply ...........................................................132
`d) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.................................................133
`e) Analysis and Determination as to Claim 25 ........................133
`7. Claim 26 ...........................................................................136
`F. Grounds 2A, 2B, and 2C — Obviousness over Sarantos, Shie,
`Venkatraman, and Savant ..............................................................136
`1. Claims 2–6, 8, 10–12, 14, 17, 19, 21–24, and 26.....................137
`2. Claim 13 ...........................................................................137
`a)
`Petitioner’s Contentions (in the Petition)............................138
`b) Patent Owner’s Opposition ..............................................139
`c)
`Petitioner’s Reply ...........................................................141
`d) Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.................................................142
`e) Analysis as to Claim 13 ...................................................142
`(i) Motivation for Using Any Light Shape Changing
`Material ............................................................................143
`(ii) Motivation for Using Cylindrical Light Shape Changing
`Material ............................................................................145
`f) Conclusion as to Claim 13 ...............................................147
`3. Claim 25 ...........................................................................147
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE.....149
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE ...........152
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ..........................................154
`ORDER ...............................................................................155
`
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 10,
`“Pet.”)1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 for inter partes review of U.S.
`Patent No. 10,687,745 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’745 patent”), claims 2–6, 8,
`10–14, 17, 19, and 21–26. The Board issued an Institution Decision
`(Paper 15) instituting the petitioned review.
`Masimo Corporation (“Masimo” or “Patent Owner”) then filed a
`Patent Owner Response (Papers 28 and 29, “PO Resp.”) to the Petition.
`Apple filed a Reply (Papers 39 and 40, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent Owner
`Response. Masimo filed a Sur-reply (Papers 49 and 50, “PO Sur-reply”) to
`the Reply. Apple filed, with prior Board authorization, a Response to Expert
`Testimony submitted with the Sur-reply (Paper 54; see Paper 43 (Order
`granting authorization)).
`An oral hearing was held on November 17, 2023, for which the
`transcript was entered into the record (Papers 69 and 71, “Tr.”).
`Masimo filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence proffered by Apple
`(Paper 55). Apple filed an Opposition (Paper 60), and Masimo filed a Reply
`(Paper 62). We deny Masimo’s Motion, for reasons provided below.
`Apple filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence proffered by Masimo
`(Paper 56). Masimo filed an Opposition (Papers 57 and 58), and Apple filed
`a Reply (Paper 61). We deny Apple’s Motion, for reasons provided below.
`
`1 Paper 10 is a Corrected Petition. See Paper 3 (Initial Petition); Ex. 3001
`(Email granting Petitioner leave to file Corrected Petition).
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner Response relies on evidence that has been sealed
`via a Protective Order.2 Accordingly, the Patent Owner Response, the
`Petitioner Reply, the Patent Owner Sur-reply, the Transcript, and Patent
`Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, all have been filed
`under seal. See Papers 28, 40, 49, 57, and 69. However, publicly available
`versions that are redacted to protect the sealed information were also filed.
`See Papers 29, 39, 50, 58, and 71. In each instance, the two filings are
`identical except for the redactions in the publicly available version.
`Citations in this Decision refer to the sealed versions, so this Decision is
`being entered under seal. In an Order set forth below, the parties are
`required to jointly file a redacted, public version of this Decision no later
`than three weeks following entry of this Decision.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) and § 318(a). This
`Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73 as to the pat entability of claims 2–6, 8, 10–14, 17, 19, and 21–26 of
`the ’745 patent. We determine Apple has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 2–6, 8, 10–12, 14, 17, 19, 21–24, and 26 are
`unpatentable, but has not shown claims 13 and 25 are unpatentable.
`
`2 See Paper 24 (Protective Order entered as Ex. 1035); Papers 41, 68, and 70
`(Orders granting various Motions to Seal, and concerning Transcript).
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Proceedings
`A.
`Apple identifies itself (i.e., Apple Inc.) as a real party-in-interest. See
`Pet. 78. Masimo identifies itself (i.e., Masimo Corporation) as a real
`party-in-interest. See Paper 5, 1.
`Apple has filed three other IPR petitions challenging the ’745 patent.
`In IPR2022-01466, Apple challenged the same claims challenged in the
`present proceeding, but on different grounds. See IPR2022-01466, Paper 10,
`at 1–2 (Corrected Petition identifying the grounds). Institution of review
`was denied in IPR2022-01466, a few weeks after institution was granted in
`the present proceeding. See IPR2022-01466, Paper 15 (Decision Denying
`Institution).
`In IPR2022-01291, Apple challenged different claims (i.e., claims 1,
`9, 15, 18, 20, and 27) than the claims challenged in the present proceeding
`(i.e., claims 2–6, 8, 10–14, 17, 19, and 21–26). See IPR2022-01291,
`Paper 51, at 1–2 (Second Corrected Petition identifying the grounds).
`Institution of review was granted. See IPR2022-01291, Paper 15 (Decision
`Granting Institution). A Final Written Decision was entered recently in
`IPR2022-01291.
`In IPR2022-01292, Apple challenged the same claims challenged in
`IPR2022-01291, but on different grounds. See IPR2022-01292, Paper 10,
`at 1–2 (Corrected Petition identifying the grounds). Institution of review
`was denied. See IPR2022-01292, Paper 15 (Decision Denying Institution).
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`There is a related U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
`investigation, in which Masimo accused Apple of importing devices (i.e., the
`Apple Watch Series 6) that in fringe the ’745 patent and other patents. See In
`the Matter of Certain Light-Based Physiological Measurement Devices and
`Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1276 (Int’l Trade Comm’n) (hereafter
`“ITC Investigation”); Ex. 1031 (Complaint initiating the ITC Investigation).
`The ITC Investigation resulted in a “Final Initial Determination” concerning
`the ’745 patent, authored by an Administrative Law Judge (Exs. 10333
`and 2093), and a “Commission Opinion” (Ex. 2104) reviewing the Initial
`Determination. At the time of our present Decision, the Commission
`Opinion is on appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, et al., No. 24-1285 (Fed. Cir.).
`There is a related U.S. District Court litigation in which Masimo has
`asserted the ’745 patent against Apple. See Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`No. 1:22-cv-01378-MN (D. Del.); Paper 13. At the time of our present
`Decision, this litigation remains pending before the District Cou rt.
`The parties have also identified yet further related proceedings
`concerning other patents. See Pet. 79–80; Paper 5, 1–3; Paper 14, 1–2.
`
`The ’745 Patent Specification
`B.
`The ’745 patent is directed to a non-invasive, light-based
`physiological monitoring device. See Ex. 1001, code (57). In one
`embodiment, the device is utilized to measur e a patient’s arterial blood
`
`3 Citations herein to Exhibit 1033 refer to the document’s original
`pagination, not the pagination added by Apple at the bottom of each page.
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`oxygen saturation, sometimes shorthanded as “SpO2” or “SpO2.” See id.
`at 1:23–27, 1:54–2:4, 2:16–18. In other embodiments, the device is utilized
`to measure other blood constituent characteristics. See id. at 2:40–50
`(stating the device can measure “oxygen, carboxyhemoglobin,
`methemoglobin, total hemoglobin, glucose, proteins, lipids, a percentage
`thereof (e.g., saturation), pulse rate, perfusion index, oxygen content, total
`hemoglobin, Oxygen Reserve Index™ (ORI™) or . . . m any other
`physiologically relevant patient characteristics”).
`Figure 3 of the ’745 patent is reproduced below.
`
`The ’745 Patent, Figure 3.
`Figure 3 is a schematic side view of pulse oximetry sensor 300 and tissue
`measurement site 102 (i.e., a patient’s fingertip). See id. at 5:12–14, 7:4–9.
`Emitter 302 emits light toward tissue site 102, and diffuser 304
`spreads the light over an area. See id. 7:12–13, 7:30–44. “In some
`embodiments, the light diffuser 304 is a beam shaper that can homogenize
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`the input light beam from the emitter 302, shape the output intensity profile
`of the received light, and define the way (e.g., the shape or pattern) the
`emitted light is distributed to the tissue measurement site 102.” Id. at
`7:44–62; see also id. at 7:63–66 (“Advantageously, the diffuser 304 can
`receive emitted light in the form of a point optical source and spread the
`light to fit a desired surface area on a plane defined by the surface of the
`tissue measurement site 102.”). Reflector 305 prevents the emitted light
`from escaping out of the top portion of diffuser 304, thereby maximizing the
`light that reaches tissue site 102. See id. at 7:14–22.
`The light enters tissue site 102, interacts with the patient’s blood
`flowing through the tissue site, and exits the tissue on the opposite side from
`which the light entered the tissue. See id. at Fig. 3, 6:55–64, 7:6–22.
`Filter 306 is a “light-absorbing” material “such as, for example, black
`pigment,” and it has an opening (not shown in Figure 3) through which the
`transmitted light may pass to reach light con centrator 308 and light
`detector 310. Id. at 7:12–14, 8:32–38, 8:54–59; see also id. at 9:31–51
`(Fig. 4A illustrates filter 306 with rectangular opening 402, in relation to
`light concentrator 308 and light detector 310). Detector 310 outputs a signal
`responsive to the transmitted light, and the signal is communicated (not
`shown in Figure 3) to a processor which utilizes the signal to determine a
`physiological parameter of interest, such as blood oxygen saturation. See id.
`at 9:19–30; see also id. at 12:1–14:29 (Fig. 8 illustrates optical physiological
`measurement system 800, wherein detector 806 outputs signal 807 to
`processor 810).
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`Figures 7A and 7B of the ’745 patent are reproduced below.
`
`The ’745 Patent, Figures 7A and 7B.
`Figure 7A is a schematic side view of pulse oximetry sensor 700 and tissue
`measurement site 102, and Figure 7B is a schematic top view of sensor 700
`with some components removed. See id. at 5:28–33, 10:40–42, 11:54–56.
`Sensor 700 is useful in connection with a tissue site having a “relatively flat
`surface, such as, for example a wrist, because the emitter 702 and
`detector 710 are [located on] the same side of the tissue measurement
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`site 102.” Id. at 10:43–49. Sensor 700 includes light diffuser 704 and light
`concentrator 708, and the components 702, 704, 708, and 710 function
`substantially the same as the corresponding components 302, 304, 308,
`and 310 of sensor 300 as described above. See id. at 10:49–11:9, 11:21–43.
`One difference, however, is that diffuser 704 spreads the light “over a wide,
`donut-shaped area” (seen best in Figure 7B) to enter tissue site 102. Id. at
`10:65–11:6.
`Sensor 700 additionally includes light blocker 706 and cover 707,
`which prevent light emitted by light emitter 702 from passing directly into
`light detector 710 without first traversing light path 720 within tissue
`site 102. See id. at 11:10–20, 11:44–67.
`The ’745 patent’s light emitters may “transmit[] optical radiation of
`red and infrared wavelengths, at approximately 650 nm and approximately
`940 nm, respectively.” Id. at 7:37–40, 10:60–63.
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’745 Patent
`C.
`The Petition challenges claims 2–6, 8, 10–14, 17, 19, and 21–26 of the
`’745 patent. See Pet. 1–2. All of those claims are dependent claims; the
`independent claims are claims 1, 15, and 20. See Ex. 1001, 15:32–18:42.
`We reproduce illustrative claims 1 and 2 here, with Apple’s labeling
`scheme:
`1.
`
`[1.0] A physiological monitoring device comprising:
`[1.1] a plurality of light-emitting diodes configured to emit
`light in a first shape;
`[1.2] a material configured to be positioned between the
`plurality of light-emitting diodes and tissue on a wrist of a
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`user when the physiological monitoring device is in use,
`the material configured to change the first shape into a
`second shape by which the light emitted from one or more
`of the plurality of light-emitting diodes is projected
`towards the tissue;
`[1.3] a plurality of photodiodes configured to detect at least
`a portion of the light after the at least the portion of the
`light passes through the tissue, the plurality of photodiodes
`further configured to output at least one signal responsive
`to the detected light;
`[1.4] a surface comprising a dark-colored coating, the
`surface configured to be positioned between the plurality
`of photodiodes and the tissue when the physiological
`monitoring device is in use, [1.5] wherein an opening
`defined in the dark-colored coating is configured to allow
`at least a portion of light reflected from the tissue to pass
`through the surface;
`[1.6] a light block configured to prevent at least a portion
`of the light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting
`diodes from reaching the plurality of photodiodes without
`first reaching the tissue; and
`[1.7] a processor configured to receive and process the
`outputted at least one signal and determine a physiological
`parameter of the user responsive to the outputted at least
`one signal.
`[2.0] The physiological monitoring device of claim 1,
`wherein at least one of the plurality of light-emitting
`diodes is configured to emit light of a first wavelength and
`at least one of the plurality of light-emitting diodes is
`configured to emit light of a second wavelength, the
`second wavelength being different than the first
`wavelength.
`Ex. 1001, 15:32–67.
`
`2.
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`D.
`Apple relies principally on the following five references. See Pet. 2.
`
`Exhibit No.
`Reference
`Name
`1004
`US 8,670,819 B2
`Iwamiya
`1005
`US 9,392,946 B1
`Sarantos
`Venkatraman US 2014/0275854 A1 1006
`Shie
`US 6,483,976 B2
`1007
`Savant
`US 6,158,245
`1012
`Apple asserts each reference qualifies as prior art to the ’745 patent by virtue
`of having a publication date (Iwamiya, Venkatraman, Shie, and Savant) or a
`filing date (Sarantos) preceding the ’745 patent’s earliest possible effective
`filing date of July 2, 2015. See Pet. 2. Masimo does not dispute this
`assertion, and we find it is supported by the evidence. See Ex. 1001,
`codes (60) and (63); Ex. 1004, code (45) (Iwamiya issued Mar. 11, 2014);
`Ex. 1005, code (22) (Sarantos filed May 28, 2015); Ex. 1006, code (43)
`(Venkatraman published Sept. 18, 2014); Ex. 1007, code (45) (Shie issued
`Nov. 19, 2022); Ex. 1012, code (45) (Savant issued Dec. 12, 2000).
`
`Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Apple asserts the following five grounds of unpatentability for the
`challenged claims. See Pet. 2.
`
`Ground Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §4 References
`2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10–12,
`1A
`103
`Iwamiya, Sarantos
`14
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective in March 2013. The ’745 patent has
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`Ground Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §4 References
`Iwamiya, Sarantos,
`1B
`4, 17, 19, 21–26
`103
`Venkatraman
`2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,
`Sarantos, Shie
`13, 14, 17, 19
`Sarantos, Shie,
`3, 4, 17, 19, 21–26
`Venkatraman
`Sarantos, Shie,
`Savant
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`12
`
`Testimonial Evidence
`F.
`Apple relies on the testimony of Brian Anthony, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003,
`1042, 1082, 2071, and 2101) as a proffered expert witness. Masimo relies
`on the testimony of R. James Duckworth, Ph.D. (Exs. 1059, 1081, 2002,
`2070, and 2100) as a proffered expert witness.
`The record also contains testimony from several witnesses provided
`during the ITC Investigation, as summarized below in Section III.D.3(e)(ii)(1).
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S GROUNDS
`A.
`Statement of Law
`Apple bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged
`claims, and this burden of persuasion never shifts to Masimo. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015). Apple must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`an earliest possible effective filing date of July 2, 2015 (see Ex. 1001,
`codes (60) and (63)), so we apply the post-AIA version of § 103.
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious before the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which the claimed invention pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on
`the basis of underlying factual det erminations including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences bet ween the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) objective indicia of nonobviousness, if made available in the record as
`Masimo has done in this case. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966). “While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`any particular case,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, the Federal Circuit has explained
`that an obviousness determination can be made only after considering all the
`Graham factors. See, e.g., Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which
`we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l,
`Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “This reference point
`prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet,
`hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id. at 1355. “The person of ordinary skill
`in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant art”
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`at the time of the in vention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`1995). In finding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider
`various factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the in ventor; (2) type
`of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems;
`(4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the
`technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best
`Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations
`omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation
`omitted).
`Apple argues a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`’745 patent is “a person with a working knowledge of physiological
`monitoring technologies” as well as “a Bachelor of Science degree in an
`academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or
`software 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 but not limited to physiological monitoring
`technologies.” Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 18. “Alternatively,” according to
`Apple, “the person could have also h ad a Master of Science degree in a
`relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience
`in the same discipline.” Pet. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 18.
`Masimo applies Apple’s ordinary skill formulation. See PO Resp. 9;
`Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 29–32; Ex. 2070 ¶ 5. According to Masimo, this formulation
`“is relatively low.” PO Resp. 9.
`Based on the record presented, we find Apple’s undisputed
`formulation of ordinary skill in the art reflects the appropriate level of skill,
`
`13
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745 B1
`
`
`
`as demonstrated by the ’745 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore,
`we adopt and apply Apple’s formulation here.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`We interpret the ’745 patent claims “using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This “includ[es]
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`Masimo construes the phrase “change the first shape into a second
`shape,” recited in independent claims 1 and 20. See PO Resp. 9–15. We do
`not reach this issue in this Decision. In Grounds 1A and 1B, we conclude
`Apple prevails in part because Iwamiya includes a material that ch anges a
`first shape of light into a second shape of light, even applying Masimo’s
`claim construction. See infra Section III.D.3(b). In Grounds 2A–2C (to the
`extent we reach them), we conclude Masimo prevails because Apple has not
`articulated a persuasive motivation for the combination of Sara ntos and Shie,
`even without applying Masimo’s limiting construction. See infra
`Section III.F.2(e). “The Board is required to