1
`
`Patent Owner Masimo’s
`Trial Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`IPR2022-01291, IPR2022-01465
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,687,745
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Masimo’s
`Trial Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
`IPR2022-01291, IPR2022-01465
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,687,745
`
`
`
`Notes
`
`All emphases, highlighting, and annotations in exhibits and figures are added
`unless noted otherwise.
`Citations refer to the filing in IPR2022-01291, unless noted otherwise.
`Arguments common to both IPR2022-01291 and -01465 are cited with
`reference to the 1291 filing.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Abbreviations
`
`POPR
`
`POR
`
`Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Sur-Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`PRET
`
`SpO2
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Expert Testimony
`
`Oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC SESSION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`’745 Patent
`
`Result of Ammar Al-Ali’s research on pulse
`oximetry at the wrist around 2014-2015
`Patent discloses various enhancements that
`improve signals typically obscured by noise
`Applies unconventional 3D analytical model
`Claims novel combination of features
`Claims 9 and 18 – oxygen saturation at the
`wrist
`
`1291 POR, 7-10; EX2008, 248:24-249:8; EX1001, 5:41-7:3, 7:4-62, 8:54-9:10, 10:40-
`11:66, Figs. 7A-7B
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Masimo’s Wrist-Worn Sensor Uses ’745 Patent’s Technology
`
`1291 POR, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Masimo W1™
`
`
`
`8
`
`ITC Investigation
`337-TA-1276
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`July 22, 2022
`Apple files IPR2022-01291
`August 26, 2022
`Apple files IPR2022-01465
`
`2021
`Masimo files ITC
`complaint against Apple
`EX1031
`
`June 6-10, 2022
`ITC Hearing
`EX2008
`
`July 11, 2022
`ITC post-hearing
`briefing complete
`EX2051
`
`January 10, 2023
`ITC Final Initial Determination:
`Claims 9, 18, 27 not obvious
`EX1033
`
`October 26, 2023
`ITC Commission Opinion affirms
`Initial Determination validity findings
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`1291 POPR, 1-3, 22-23, 26; 1291 POR, 29-31; Paper 20, 1-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`ITC Made Key Findings
`
`ITC Final Initial Determination (EX1033/EX2093) at 231
`
`ITC Final Commission Opinion (October 26, 2023) affirmed the January 10, 2023
`Initial Determination that the ’745 Patent claims are not invalid as obvious
`
`1291 POR 1; Paper 20, 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds (1291)
`
`Already rejected
`by the ITC
`Apple briefed and
`then withdrew these
`arguments in the ITC
`
`1291 Pet., 2; 1291 POPR, 20; Paper 20, 2-3; 1291 POR 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds (1465)
`
`1465 Pet., 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Disputes
`
`“determine … oxygen saturation”
`
`Claims 9 and 18
`
`“arranged in an array having a spatial configuration
`corresponding to a shape of the portion of the tissue
`measurement site encircled by the light block”
`Claims 15, 6, 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Claims 9 and 18: “Determine … Oxygen Saturation”
`Requires Calculating Oxygen Saturation
`Both experts agree:
`The claim requires the device to calculate oxygen saturation.
`EX2100, ¶8-10; EX2101, 69:4-9; Sur-Reply 3
`
`Apple’s Shifting Position:
`Response to Expert Testimony: “no construction is necessary”
`
`PRET, 1
`Apple’s Reply: satisfied by “rudimentary functions,” and “might not even need
`to be a measurement”
`
`Reply, 21; EX1042, ¶41; Sur-Reply 3
`
`1291 Reply, 21; 1291 Sur-Reply, 3; 1291 PRET, 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claims 15, 6, 26: “Spatial Configuration … Corresponding
`To” Requires Sufficient Detectors To Match Shape
`Parent prosecution history addressed limitation “arranged in an array having a
`spatial configuration corresponding to the shape of the irradiated portion of the
`tissue measurement site.”
`Requires “a sufficient number of detectors” in an array to “match” the
`“irradiated portion of the tissue measurement site.”
`Six or more detectors could correspond to a circular shape. Two or three
`cannot.
`
`1291 POPR 17-19; 1291 POR 50-53; EX2057, 322.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Iwamiya + Sarantos
`(Claims 1, 20, and Dependents):
`No Surface Comprising
`A Dark-Colored Coating
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`No Dark-Colored Coating
`
`Iwamiya:
`Uses “metal with a light shielding
`property”
`Duckworth:
`Apple “assumed a problem with the
`light shielding frame that did not
`exist.”
`
`EX2070, ¶59.
`
`1291 POR 44-47; EX1004, 18:61-64; see also 28:64-29:1, 39:20-24; EX2070, ¶61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`1291 Pet., 15 (Apple’s annotations of EX1004, Fig. 4)
`
`
`
`Dark-Colored Coating Reduces Received Signal
`
`Experts agree:
`Using a dark-colored coating on
`Iwamiya’s light shielding frame would
`reduce the light signal reflected back
`to the photodetector.
`EX1042, ¶9; EX2100, ¶17.
`
`EX2100, ¶17 (annotating EX1004, Fig. 4)
`
`1291 POR 47-50; 1291 Sur-Reply, 5-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`Iwamiya + Sarantos
`(Claims 6, 15, 26, and Dependents):
`No Photodiode “Array” With
`Claimed “Spatial Configuration”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition Did Not Identify Photodiode Arrangement
`Reply Makes Iwamiya Substantially Worse
`
`1291 Sur-Reply 8-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`1291 Reply, 9 (Apple’s annotations of EX1004, Fig. 2)
`
`
`
`Apple Asserts Modification
`Increases Detection Area But Actually Does The Opposite
`
`Substantially decreases light sensitivity
`Worse signal-to-noise ratio
`No light detection at center
`
`1291 Sur-Reply 8-9; EX2100, ¶¶24-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Apple’s Alleged Motivation Applies To Opposite Configuration
`
`Iwamiya (EX1004):
`Central photodetector, peripheral light emitters
`
`Mendelson (EX1008):
`Central light emitters, peripheral photodetectors
`
`1291 Sur-Reply 9-11; EX2100, ¶27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Iwamiya’s “Circumference”:
`Does Not Teach Reduced Signal Strength
`IWAMIYA: DO THIS
`NOT THIS
`
`1291 Sur-Reply, 11; EX2100, ¶¶28-29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`Iwamiya + Sarantos (Claims 9, 18):
`No Oxygen Saturation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Iwamiya Teaches Away From
`Both Oxygen Saturation And Combination With Sarantos
`
`Iwamiya teaches away from
`using visible light
`Iwamiya + Sarantos inoperable
` Iwamiya’s optical filter blocks light
`<900 nm
`Also applies to claims 2, 27
`
`1291 POR, 22-28, 43-44, 1465 POR 28-36; EX2002, ¶85; EX2070, ¶51; EX1004, 8:38-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`EX1004, Fig. 3; EX2002-1291, ¶94
`
`
`
`Iwamiya Teaches Away From Visible Light
`Used For Oxygen Saturation
`
`EX1004, 1:62-2:6
`In Iwamiya’s sensor design, visible light is “weak” and “biological information …
`cannot be detected.” EX1004, 10:34-38
`
`1291 POR, 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Iwamiya Teaches Away From Using Visible Light
`
`1291 POR, 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`EX2070, ¶47 (annotating EX1004, Fig. 6)
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Combination Is Inoperable Because
`Iwamiya Cannot Measure Light Below 900 nm
`
`EX1004, Fig. 3; EX2002-1291, ¶94
`
`EX1004, Fig. 8; EX2070, ¶49
`
`1291 POR, 22-27; EX1004, 8:42-47; EX2070, ¶49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Iwamiya’s Photodetector Is Insensitive To Red Light
`
`1291 POR, 24; EX2070, ¶4; 1291 POR, 24; EX1004, 8:29-37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`EX1004, Fig. 9
`
`
`
`Sarantos Uses Light From The Visible Spectrum
`
`1291 POR, 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`EX1005, 18:35-44
`
`
`
`Sarantos: Sensor “Not Tailored” For
`“Dramatically Different” Red & Infrared Light
`
`1291 POR, 26; EX2002, ¶¶81, 83; EX2070, ¶50; 1291 POR, 20-21, 43; EX2002-1291, ¶81;
`see also EX2070, ¶57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`EX1005, 18:44-51
`
`
`
`Fitbit (Sarantos Assignee) Did Not Release A
`Wrist SpO2 Device Until 2020
`Petition: “[W]rist-worn pulse oximetry sensors, such as that described in
`Sarantos, were well-known in the art.” 1291 Pet., 20.
`
`Duckworth:
`“[B]ased on my research, it
`apparently took Fitbit more than five
`years before it announced (in late
`2020) that some of its devices might
`be able to measure SpO2.”
`
`EX2070, ¶54.
`
`1291 POR, 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`EX2092
`
`
`
`Fitbit In 2020: SpO2 At Wrist Is A “Hard Technical Problem”
`
`Fitbit’s director of research in 2020:
`“It’s a pretty hard technical problem to measure SpO2 on the wrist.”
`
`1291 POR, 29; EX2088, 1, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Motivation Illusory Because
`Modification Would Not Expand Iwamiya’s Parameters
`
`1291 Petition, 20; 1291 POR, 21-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Wrist-Worn Pulse Oximetry Sensors Were Not “Well-Known”
`
`1291 Petition, 20; 1291 POR, 28-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Makes New Modifications To Iwamiya
`
`Modify Iwamiya with one or more red LEDs, which Iwamiya discourages.
`EX2100, ¶34
`Reply changes or removes Iwamiya’s optical filter, which Iwamiya requires for
`improving signal and removing external light. EX2100, ¶¶34-35
`Eliminates the filter and light-shielding frame, which removes the structure in
`Iwamiya that the Petition modifies with a dark coating. EX2100, ¶35.
`Change Iwamiya’s photodiodes to be sensitive to red light, but Iwamiya taught
`away from visible light. POR, 22-26
`Iwamiya requires IR light to obtain a measurable signal, discourages and filters
`out visible light, and accordingly teaches away. POR, 22-26
`
`1291 Sur-Reply, 7-8; EX2100, ¶¶31-37; 1291 POR, 22-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`Iwamiya +Sarantos (Claim 25):
`No Second Shape Comprising A Width and
`Different Length
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Iwamiya’s Symmetric Shape Does Not Have A Different
`Width And Length
`
`1465 Petition, 37
`
`1465 Reply, 22
`
`1465 Petition, 37-38; 1465 Reply, 22; 1465 POR, 40-42; 1465 Sur-Reply, 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`1465 Petition, 38
`
`
`
`39
`
`Sarantos + Shie
`(Claims 1, 19, 20 and Dependents):
`No Change From First Shape To Second Shape
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Petition Provided No Details For Combination
`
`Petition:
`“Shie describes a diffuser that has a ‘light diffusing and shaping advantages’
`and changes a first shape of light into a second shape.”
`
`1291 Pet., 32
`
`Petition did not identify which “diffuser” to use with Sarantos
`Petition did not identify how any diffuser would be implemented
`
`1291 POR 15, 16, 54-57; EX2074, 65:18-23; 1465 POR, 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Sarantos + Shie: What Is The Combination?
`
`Sarantos + ?
`
`1291 POR 56-57
`
`EX1007 (Shie), Figs. 1-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`“Change The First Shape Into A Second Shape”
`Change in Size ≠ Change in Shape (Claims 1, 20)
`
`At the ITC, Apple agreed that a change in size is not a change in shape
`
`Apple did not give Dr. Anthony Apple’s ITC construction and Dr. Anthony incorrectly
`understood the first and second shapes could be “the exact same shape.”
`
`EX2071, 76:10-16, 79:8-84:10, 97:17-98:5, 107:18-109:5; 104:3-113:6.
`
`1291 POR 11-16; POPR 2; EX2053, 3 n.1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`Duckworth Decl. (EX2070) ¶9
`
`
`
`Apple’s Reply Changes Theory From Unknown Diffuser
`To Lenses (But Not Any Of Shie’s Optical Elements)
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1291 Pet., 32; Reply, 25; 1291 Sur-Reply 12-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`None Of The Petition’s Three Alleged Motivations
`Have Contemporaneous Evidentiary Support (All Claims)
`
`1. “precisely direct the light emitted toward the tissue”
`2. “direct light towards a larger area”
`3. “obscure the LED’s appearance from a user”
`
`Petition’s motivation theory relied solely on Dr. Anthony
`
`1291 Petition, 32-33; 1291 POR 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`The “Collaborative Writing Effort”:
`Copy And Paste Apple’s ITC Brief
`Anthony relied on documents that he never reviewed and could not identify
`
`Anthony Declaration (EX2002-1291, ¶76)
`
`Apple’s ITC
`Pre-Hearing Brief
`(EX2052, 175)
`
`1291 POPR 52-53; 1291 POR, 57-58; EX2071, 60:19-62:14, 190:13-194:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Apple’s Alleged Motivation To Direct Light Towards The
`Tissue Does Not Make Sense For Sarantos
`Sarantos’ LED light is already directed toward the tissue
`
`1291 POR, 59-61; 1291 Petition, 32-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`No Need To Redirect Light In Sarantos Because HAR
`Detectors Already Capture Nearly All Light
`
`1291 POR, 60; EX1005, Figs. 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Sarantos Discourages Apple’s “Spreading” Motivation
`
`Spreading contrary to
`Sarantos’s teaching
`Apple’s “spreading”
`motivation opposite to
`“directing” motivation
`No cited art supports theory
`that “spreading” helps (e.g.,
`“mole” problem)
`
`1291 POR, 61-64; Sur-Reply, 14-15, EX1005, Fig. 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Apple Imagines Shape Of Light
`After It Passes Through Tissue
`
`EX1042 (Anthony), ¶64
`Apple’s annotated figures show the light after it passes through tissue;
`provides little insight to change in shape caused by material
`No evidence reflected light would provide “ellipse” or “rectangle”
`
`1291 Sur-Reply 14-15; EX2100, ¶¶47-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`Dr. Anthony’s Reply Declaration Applies A Theory That
`Conflicts With Apple’s ITC Position
`There is no change in shape according to Apple’s ITC arguments and expert
`Dr. Anthony’s Reply Declaration assumed, e.g., that light from a square LED is
`square, with
`“no change in shape between the LEDs and the diffuser.”
`
`EX1042, ¶¶53, 58.
`
`But before the ITC, Apple argued:
`• Relevant comparison is between light when it reaches material and emerges
`from material
`
`EX2074 at 65:18-23
`• Light from LED “changes from a square to a circular shape without passing
`through any material….”
`
`EX2050, 160, 166-168.
`
`1291 Sur-Reply 13-14; 1291 POR 13-14; Apple’s ITC Post-Hearing Brief (EX2050), 160,
`166-168
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Apple Tried and Failed to Implement the
`Alleged “Obvious” Modification
`Apple’s Reply: modify Sarantos’s pulse sensor with an LED and “Fresnel-type
`lens[].” 1291 Reply, 24-25
`Dr. Mannheimer determined that Apple could not measure oxygen saturation
`by adding LEDs to a “Series 0” pulse sensor with a Fresnel lens
`Dr. Mannheimer concluded: “Invention is required” for optical properties
`Apple replaced Fresnel lens with microlens array in Series 6
`No motivation to obscure LED when result non-functional
`LEDs not visible regardless
`
`POR, 63-64; Sur-Reply, 15-16; EX2085, 7, 9, 12, 13; EX2100, ¶57. Note: This slide is
`nonconfidential. See 1291 POPR 28-29; EX2002-1291, ¶¶ 189-191
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`Sarantos + Shie
`(Claim 15 and Dependents):
`No Light Block Having a Circular Shape And
`No Claimed “Array” of Photodiodes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Sarantos’ Figures 22 and 25 Are Not Cohesive
`
`Reply combines embodiments for the first time.
`Proposed combination includes features not found in Sarantos or Shie
`
`Reply, 28
`(Apple’s added annotations to EX1005, Fig. 25)
`
`EX1005, Figs. 17, 18
`
`1291 Sur-Reply, 16-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`Claims 9, 18 (All Grounds):
`Determining Oxygen Saturation At The Wrist
`Was Not Obvious in 2015
`(Public Session Evidence)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`~2014-2015
`Masimo develops ’745
`patent invention
`EX2008, 248:24-249:8
`
`July 2, 2015
`Masimo files ’745
`parent application
`EX1001
`
`Late 2014
`Apple hires Dr. Mannheimer to
`investigate SpO2 at wrist
`POPR, 26; EX2008, 996:25-997:5
`
`2022
`Apple petitions for IPR
`
`Sept. 15, 2020
`Apple announces SpO2
`measurements
`EX2062; EX2080, 174:19-175:5
`
`2001
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2022
`
`May 9, 2001
`Shie filed
`EX1007
`
`June 29, 2010
`Iwamiya filed
`EX1004
`
`April 2014
`Withings Pulse O2 –
`measures SpO2 on finger
`EX1057
`
`May 28, 2015
`Sarantos filed.
`EX1005
`
`Sept. 7, 2020
`Fitbit (Sarantos assignee)
`announces SpO2 measurements
`EX2083
`
`1291 POR, 7-8, 29-33, 36-39; 1291 Sur-Reply, 24-25; EX2002-1291, ¶196; EX2070, ¶54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Iwamiya Teaches Away From
`Oxygen Saturation Measurements
`Never mentions oxygen saturation
`Measures only one wavelength in non-visible spectrum (940 nm infrared)
` EX1004, 10:34-38, 11:19-23, EX2002-1291, ¶80
`Filters out visible light, including red light used for oxygen saturation
` EX1004, 8:37-47, Figs. 3-4, 8; EX2002-1291, ¶83, EX2070, ¶49
`Experts agree: no known method to measure oxygen saturation with one
`wavelength.
` EX2002-1291, ¶80; EX2071, 41:10-17
`
`1291 POR, 18-20, 25-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Sarantos: Sensor “Not Tailored” For
`“Dramatically Different” Red & Infrared Light
`
`1291 POR, 26; EX2002, ¶¶81, 83; EX2070, ¶50; 1291 POR, 20-21, 43; EX2002-1291, ¶81;
`see also EX2070, ¶57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`EX1005, 18:44-51
`
`
`
`Fitbit (Sarantos Assignee) Did Not Release A
`Wrist SpO2 Device Until 2020
`Petition: “[W]rist-worn pulse oximetry sensors, such as that described in
`Sarantos, were well-known in the art.” 1291 Pet., 20.
`
`Duckworth:
`“[B]ased on my research, it
`apparently took Fitbit more than five
`years before it announced (in late
`2020) that some of its devices might
`be able to measure SpO2.”
`
`EX2070, ¶54.
`
`1291 POR, 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`EX2092
`
`
`
`Fitbit In 2020: SpO2 At Wrist Is A “Hard Technical Problem”
`
`Fitbit’s director of research in 2020:
`“It’s a pretty hard technical problem to measure SpO2 on the wrist.”
`
`1291 POR, 29; EX2088, 1, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Withings Pulse O2 (April 2014): “Seriously Annoying”
`
`Must remove from wrist because it “requires your finger to use”
`“Seriously annoying” design shows determining oxygen saturation at the wrist
`was not well-known and was still an unsolved challenge. EX2100, ¶80.
`
`EX1057, 2, 3, 5; 1291 Sur-Reply, 24-25; EX2100, ¶80
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Objective Evidence Confirms Nonobviousness
`
`Apple’s IPR expert who never
`worked on pulse oximetry
`at the wrist
`
`Apple’s team of experts who
`actually worked on pulse
`oximetry at the wrist at the
`relevant time in 2015
`
`1291 POR, 28-40, EX2071, 46:15-18; 1291 Sur-Reply, 28-29
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6161
`
`
`
`62
`
`CONFIDENTIAL SESSION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
