Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: May 5, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1018
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: May 5, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1018
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6, 8, 9, 11–19, and 21–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’695 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). We instituted the
`petitioned review. Paper 8 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 13, “PO Resp.”) to oppose the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 18, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner filed
`a Sur-reply (Paper 19, “PO Sur-reply”) to the Reply. We conducted an oral
`hearing on February 9, 2022. A transcript has been entered in the record
`(Paper 28, “Tr.”).1
`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 patentability of claims 6, 14, and 21 of the ’695 patent. We
`determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`those claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`1 In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner indicates that claims 1–5, 8,
`9, 11–13, 15–19, and 22–30 “have been statutorily disclaimed under 35
`U.S.C. § 253(a),” and are “no longer at issue in this proceeding.” PO
`Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004). At oral argument, Patent Owner again
`acknowledged that claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–19, and 22–30 have been
`disclaimed. Tr. 13. In its Reply, Petitioner also notes that those claims have
`been disclaimed “leaving claims 6, 14, and 21 as the only remaining
`challenged claims.” Pet. Reply 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 2004). Exhibit 2004 is
`titled “Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 CFR 1.321(a)” and indicates that
`claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–19, and 22–30 have been disclaimed. Ex. 2004,
`1. Accordingly, we regard claims 6, 14, and 21 as the only remaining
`challenged claims in this proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner identifies the following matters related to the
`’695 patent:
`Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-00048
`(C.D. Cal.) (filed Jan. 9, 2020);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01520 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,258,265 B1);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01521 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,628 B1);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01523 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01524 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01526 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,994 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01536 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01537 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01538 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01539 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01713 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564 B1);
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01714 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,765 B1 patent);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01715 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,765 B1 patent);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01716 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,194 patent);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01723 (PTAB Oct. 2,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695 B2);2
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01733 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,195 B1); and
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01737 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,366 B1).
`Paper 4, 2–3.
`Patent Owner also identifies the following pending patent applications
`that claim priority to, or share a priority claim with, the ’695 patent:
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/195,199;
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/532,061;
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/532,065;
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/791,955;
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/791,963;
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/835,712;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Pursuant to the Board’s November 2019, Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated,
`Petitioner filed a Notice ranking its two petitions that challenge the
`’695 patent, ranking first the instant proceeding and ranking second
`IPR2020-01723. Paper 3, 2. We exercised our discretion to deny institution
`of inter partes review in IPR2020-01723. See IPR2020-01723, Paper 8.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/835,772; and
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/871,874.
`
`
`Id. at 1–2.
`
`C. The ’695 Patent
`The ’695 patent is titled “Advanced Pulse Oximetry Sensor,” and
`issued on November 12, 2019, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`16/226,249, filed December 19, 2018. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22), (45), (54).
`The ’695 patent summarizes its disclosure as follows:
`This disclosure describes embodiments of non-invasive
`methods, devices, and systems for measuring blood constituents,
`analytes, and/or substances such as, by way of non-limiting
`example, oxygen, carboxyhemoglobin, methemoglobin, total
`hemoglobin, glucose, proteins, lipids, a percentage therefor
`(e.g., saturation), pulse rate, perfusion index, oxygen content,
`total hemoglobin, Oxygen Reserve IndexTM (ORITM) or for
`measuring many other physiologically
`relevant patient
`characteristics. These characteristics can relate to, for example,
`pulse rate, hydration, trending information and analysis, and the
`like.
`Id. at 2:36–46.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`
`Figures 7A and 7B of the ’695 patent are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 7A and 7B above depict side and top views, respectively, of a three-
`dimensional pulse oximetry sensor according to an embodiment of the
`’695 patent. Id. at 5:28–33. Sensor 700 includes emitter 702, light
`diffuser 704, light block (or blocker) 706, light concentrator 708, and
`detector 710. Id. at 10:49–51. The sensor functions to irradiate tissue
`measurement site 102, e.g., a patient’s wrist, and detects emitted light that is
`reflected by the tissue measurement site. Id. at 10:43–49. “[L]ight
`blocker 706 includes an annular ring having cover portion 707 sized and
`shaped to form a light isolation chamber for the light concentrator 708 and
`the detector 710.” Id. at 11:10–12. “[L]ight blocker 706 and cover 70[7]
`ensures that the only light detected by the detector 710 is light that is
`reflected from the tissue measurement site.” Id. at 11:16–20.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 of the ’695 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 8 above illustrates “a block diagram of an example pulse oximetry
`system capable of noninvasively measuring one or more blood analytes in a
`monitored patient.” Id. at 5:34–36. Pulse oximetry system 800 includes
`sensor 801 (or multiple sensors) coupled to physiological monitor 809. Id.
`at 12:21–23. Monitor 809 includes “signal processor 810 that includes
`processing logic that determines measurements for desired analytes based on
`the signals received from the detector 806” that is a part of sensor 801. Id. at
`13:37–40. Monitor 809 also includes user interface 812 that provides “an
`output, e.g., on a display, for presentation to a user of pulse oximetry system
`800.” Id. at 13:64–66.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 6 is illustrative and is reproduced below.3
`1. A wrist-worn physiological monitoring device configured for
`placement on a user at a tissue measurement site, the device
`comprising:
`
`a light emission source comprising a plurality of emitters
`configured to irradiate the tissue measurement site by emitting
`light
`towards
`the
`tissue measurement site,
`the
`tissue
`measurement site being located on a wrist of the user,
`the plurality of emitters configured to emit one or more
`wavelengths;
`a plurality of detectors configured to detect the light
`emitted by the plurality of emitters after attenuation by a circular
`portion of the tissue measurement site,
`the plurality of detectors further configured to output at
`least one signal responsive to the detected light;
`a processor configured to receive the at least one signal
`responsive to the output and determine a physiological parameter
`of the user; and
`a light block forming an enclosing wall between the light
`emission source and the plurality of detectors,
`the light block defining the circular portion of the tissue
`measurement site, the light emission source arranged proximate
`a first side of the enclosing wall and the plurality of detectors
`arranged proximate a second side of the enclosing wall, the first
`side being difference than the second side,
`wherein the enclosing wall prevents at least a portion of
`light emitted from the light emission source from being detected
`by the plurality of detectors without attenuation by the tissue, and
`wherein the plurality of detectors are arranged in an array having
`a spatial configuration corresponding to the circular portion of
`the tissue measurement site.
`Ex. 1001, 15:32–63.
`
`
`3 Because claim 6 depends from independent claim 1, we also reproduce
`disclaimed claim 1 for completeness.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`6. The physiological monitoring device of claim 1, further
`comprising a diffuser which receives, spreads, and emits the
`spread light, wherein the emitted spread light is directed at the
`tissue measurement site.
`Id. at 16:16–19.4
`
`E. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Reference
`Publication/Patent Number
`Sarantos
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,946 B1 issued July 19,
`2016
`Mendelson et al., Skin Reflectance Pulse
`Oximetry: In Vivo Measurements from the
`Forearm and Calf, Journal of Clinical
`Monitoring Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7–12 (January
`1991)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,343,223 B1 issued Jan. 29,
`2002
`WO 2011/051888 A2 published May 5, 2011
`
`Mendelson-
`1991
`
`Chin
`
`Exhibit
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1006
`
`1016
`
`Ackermans
`
`
`Pet. 3–4. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Brian W. Anthony,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Vijay K.
`Madisetti, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001).
`
`
`
`4 Claim 14 (which depends from independent claim 9) and claim 21 (which
`depends from independent claim 19) add a similar “diffuser” limitation as is
`set forth in claim 6.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 14, and 21 are unpatentable based
`upon the following grounds (Pet. 3):5
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`6, 14, 21
`103
`6, 14, 21
`103
`
`References/Basis
`Sarantos, Mendelson-1991,
`Chin
`Ackermans, Chin
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, a claim shall be
`construed 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) (2019). Both parties submit that no claim term requires express
`construction. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 14. Based on our analysis of the issues, we
`conclude that no claim terms require express construction. Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`
`5 As noted by both parties, because of Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer,
`these are the only claims and grounds that remain at issue in this proceeding.
`See PO Resp. 16; see generally Pet. Reply, PO Sur-reply.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness.6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). When
`evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also “determine whether
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a combination of prior art
`elements would have produced a predictable result weighs in the ultimate
`determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.
`In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity
`why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The
`burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware,
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner identifies the appropriate level of skill in the art as follows:
`The person would have had 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.
`.
`.
`.
`
`
`6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`Alternatively, the person could have also 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. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–19).
`Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of the level of
`ordinary skill. Patent Owner, however, does level a measure of criticism of
`Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as not accounting for
`experience in optics or physiology, and focusing on “data processing and not
`sensor design.” PO Resp. 13. Nevertheless, Patent Owner expresses that it
`“applies [Petitioner’s] asserted level of skill.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–
`36). We determine that the Petitioner’s expressed level of ordinary skill in
`the art is consistent with the ’695 patent and the prior art of record.
`Accordingly, we adopt it in this Decision.
`
`D. Obviousness Over Sarantos, Mendelson-1991, and Chin
`Petitioner contends that claims 6, 14, and 21 would have been obvious
`based on the teachings of Sarantos, Mendelson-1991, and Chin. Pet. 61–63.
`Patent Owner disagrees and presents several arguments in opposition. PO
`Resp. 16–42; PO Sur-reply 2–13.
`
`1. Overview of Sarantos
`Sarantos is titled “Heart Rate Sensor With High-Aspect-Ratio
`Photodetector Element.” Ex. 1014, code (54). Sarantos describes
`“[photoplethysmographic (PPG)] sensors designed for use with wearable
`biometric monitoring devices” and which measure “physiological
`parameters” of a wearer such as “heart rate” and “blood oxygenation levels.”
`Id. at 6:66–7:3, 13:39–47.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`Sarantos’s Figure 2 is reproduced on
`the right. Figure 2 illustrates “a wristband-
`type wearable fitness monitor that
`incorporates a PPG sensor[.]” Id. at 5:55–56.
`Fitness monitor 200 includes housing 104,
`back face 128 and light sources 108. Id. at
`7:12–23. “PPG sensors operate by shining
`light into a person’s skin. This light diffuses
`through the person’s flesh and a portion of
`this light is then emitted back out of the
`person’s skin in close proximity to where the
`light was introduced into the flesh.” Id. at
`7:24–28.
`
`Sarantos’s Figure 18 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 18 above illustrates an example of a PPG sensor photodetector layout
`with multiple light-emitting devices. Id. at 6:39–42. Photodetector
`elements 1812 are characterized as being in a “circular array” centered on
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`light source 1808, which includes two light-emitting devices 1810. Id. at
`14:60–62; 15:24–43. Sarantos describes that the PPG sensor
`may also include control logic, which may be communicatively
`connected with the light source and each photodetector element
`and configured to cause the light source to emit light, obtain one
`or more measured light intensity measurements from the one or
`more photodetector elements, and determine a heart rate
`measurement based, at least in part, on the one or more light
`intensity measurements.
`Id. at 2:5–12.
`Sarantos’s Figure 22 is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 22 above depicts another example configuration of a PPG sensor
`according to Sarantos’s invention. Id. at 6:52–54. Substrate 2272 supports
`two high-aspect-ratio (HAR) photodetector elements 2212 positioned on
`either side of light source 2208. Id. at 17:1–3. Window 2278 is offset from
`substrate 2272. Id. at 17:3–4. Sarantos explains the following:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`The window 2278 may be held against a person’s skin e.g., by
`being held in place with a strap, when heart rate measurements
`are obtained to allow light from the light source 2208 to shine
`through its associated window region 2226 and into the person’s
`skin, where the light then diffuses into the surrounding flesh and
`is then emitted back out of the person’s skin and into the HAR
`photodetector elements 2212 through the respective window
`regions 2226 associated with the HAR photodetector elements
`2212.
`Id. at 17:16–25.
`
`Sarantos additionally explains the following:
`In order to reduce the chance that light from the light
`source 2208 will reach either of the HAR photodetector elements
`2212 without first being diffused through the person’s skin, the
`light source 2208 may be separated from the HAR photodetector
`elements 2212 within the PPG sensor by walls 2274, which may
`extend to the window 2278 or may stop short of the window
`2278.
`Id. at 17:26–32.
`
`2. Overview of Mendelson-1991
`Mendelson-1991 is an article from the Journal of Clinical Monitoring
`titled “Skin Reflectance Pulse Oximetry: In Vivo Measurements from the
`Forearm and Calf.” Ex. 1015, 1. The article “describe[s] preliminary in
`vivo evaluation of a new optical reflectance sensor for noninvasive
`monitoring of SaO2 with a modified commercial transmittance pulse
`oximeter.” Id. at 2.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`Mendelson-1991’s Figures 1A and 1B are reproduced below:
`
`
`The figures above illustrate “(A) Frontal and (B) side views of the heated
`skin reflectance pulse oximeter sensor.” Id. The figures show a pulse
`oximeter sensor that includes, among other things, multiple “photodiodes,”
`“light-emitting diodes (LEDs),” and an “optical shield.” Id.
`
`3. Overview of Chin
`Chin is titled “Oximeter Sensor with Offset Emitters and Detector and
`Heating Device.” Ex. 1006, code (54). Chin’s Figures 7A and 7B are
`reproduced below:
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 7A and 7B “are side and top views of a nostril sensor according to
`the invention.” Id. at 3:64–65. Chin describes that pads 172 and 174
`include emitter 176 and detector 178, respectively. Id. at 8:20–25. Chin
`also explains that the sensor may include “optical diffuser 180 for diffusing
`the light from emitter 176, which causes a further spreading or mixing of
`light and may enhance the amount of tissue penetrated in some instances.”
`Id. at 8:25–28. Chin additionally explains generally that a diffusing optic
`causes light emitted from an emitter “to pass through more tissue, and thus
`more blood.” Id. at 2:4–7.
`Chin further describes that “[t]he sensor could be any type of sensor,
`such as a durable sensor or a disposable sensor” and “could attach to any
`body part, such as the earlobe, finger, etc.” Id. at 5:54–56. Chin
`additionally describes that its sensor “could be a reflectance or a
`transmittance sensor.” Id. at 5:56–57.
`
`4. Discussion
`Petitioner provides a detailed assessment as to where all of the
`limitations required by claims 6, 14, and 21 are found in Sarantos,
`Mendelson-1991, and Chin. Pet. 7–25, 63. Specifically, Petitioner
`expresses that all features of claims 6, 14, and 21, with the exception of a
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`diffuser, are found in Sarantos and Mendelson-1991. Petitioner points to
`Chin as disclosing a diffuser. Petitioner also explains that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had adequate reason to combine the
`teachings of Sarantos, Mendelson-1991, and Chin. Id. at 36–38, 63.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that all the features of claims 6, 14, and
`21 are found in the cited prior art references, but Patent Owner does disagree
`that Petitioner has established adequate reasoning to combine those
`references’ teachings. PO Resp. 16–33; PO Sur-reply 8–13. A core basis of
`that disagreement is said to arise from purported differences between “thick
`tissue” and “thin tissue” of a user’s skin, and that such differences preclude
`combination of sensors that are intended to be applied to those different
`tissue types. See, e.g., PO Resp. 16–20; PO Sur-reply 9–10.7 As a result of
`that alleged tissue thickness dichotomy, according to Patent Owner, a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined aspects of a sensor, e.g.,
`a diffuser, used for “thin tissue” as in Chin, with sensors intended for use on
`a wrist, e.g., the sensors of Sarantos and Mendelson-1991. PO Resp. 21–33;
`PO Sur-reply 7–13. We have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments,
`but for the following reasons find them unavailing.
`At the outset, we observe that Patent Owner’s attempt to establish a
`distinction between sensors or devices applied to alleged “thin” tissue as
`opposed to “thick” tissue draws little, if any, support from the prior art
`evidence of this proceeding. Patent Owner attempts to discount Chin’s
`
`
`7 We understand that, in Patent Owner’s view, “thin tissue” is present at such
`sites as a user’s nostrils and earlobes, whereas “thick tissue” is present, for
`instance, at a user’s wrist. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 2 (“thin tissue
`measurement sites (e.g., ear lobe or nostril)”); id. at 10 (“thicker tissue sites
`like the wrist”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`teachings as being limited to “sensors worn at thin tissue measurement
`sites.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:14–21, 8:21–29). Yet, we do not
`discern that Patent Owner points to any disclosure in Chin that limits its
`teachings to any particular tissue sites, let alone only sites regarded as
`“thin.” Indeed, Chin does not describe any tissue site to which its sensor is
`applied as being “thin.” Furthermore, the portions of Chin on which Patent
`Owner relies simply describe a general background of oximeter sensors (Ex.
`1006, 1:41–21) and the sensor configuration of one particular embodiment
`(id. at 8:21–29). While Chin characterizes that particular embodiment as
`directed to a “nostril sensor” (id. at 8:20–21), there is no disclosure
`purporting to restrict Chin’s teachings to use with only a user’s nostril.
`We share Petitioner’s view that Patent Owner provides inadequate
`evidentiary support to make out a case that there is a dichotomy as between
`“thin tissue” and “thick tissue” pulse oximeters such that they represent
`distinct classes of sensors whose various aspects and features are
`uncombinable. Pet. Reply 3–4. We agree with Petitioner that Patent
`Owner’s reliance only on the uncorroborated testimony of Dr. Madisetti is
`inadequate to establish the proposed dichotomy. Id. at 4 (citing PO Resp.
`16–20; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–56). Dr. Madisetti points to no adequate evidence or
`basis to support his conclusions on the matter. We also take note, as does
`Petitioner (Pet. Reply 5 n.4), that neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Madisetti
`provides adequate explanation as to how “thick” or “thin” tissues sites are
`even defined.
`Moreover, in our view, Patent Owner neglects to consider the full
`extent of Chin’s teachings. Although Chin associates its embodiment shown
`in Figures 7A and 7B with a “nostril sensor,” Chin’s teachings are not
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`limited strictly to a nostril sensor as the reference unambiguously provides
`that its sensor can attach “to any body part,” and lists, by way of examples,
`“the earlobe, finger, etc.” Ex. 1006, 5:55–56. Although, Patent Owner
`attempts to discount that disclosure as somehow being limited only to the
`specific “wiring arrangement” shown in Chin’s Figure 2 (see, e.g., PO Sur-
`reply 4–5), that attempt is ill explained and is not consistent with Chin’s
`plain disclosure that its sensor “could be any type of sensor” and is
`“attach[ed] to any body part.” Ex. 1006, 5:55–56. Patent Owner also
`admonishes Petitioner for offering “no context” for that disclosure (PO Sur-
`reply 1), but Chin, itself, provides the context in setting forth that its sensor
`is not limited to use with any particular body part. There can be no credible
`argument that a skilled artisan would not readily regard Chin’s teachings as
`extending beyond simply a sensor that is used for a nostril.
`We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would somehow regard Chin’s teaching of a diffuser
`as being limited either solely to use with a nostril sensor (see, e.g.,
`Tr. 23:13–17),8 or only such measurement sites as an “earlobe or nostril”
`(see PO Sur-reply 2). Chin explains generally that use of a diffuser is
`understood to be beneficial in causing light “to pass through more tissue, and
`thus more blood.” Ex. 1006, 2:4–7. Chin describes that benefit more
`particularly in the context of the nostril sensor shown in the embodiment of
`
`
`8 “[JUDGE]: Yes. Okay. So I’ve heard what you said but I have a couple of
`clarifying questions. So are you suggesting that Chin’s teachings are limited
`to applying a diffuser to a nostril sensor? It sounds like you have been and I
`just wanted to verify.
`[COUNSEL]: I definitely am, yes.”
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`Figures 7A and 7B (id. at 8:25–29),9 but there is nothing that suggests that
`Chin limits the benefits of a diffuser to one particular tissue type (e.g.,
`nostril tissue). We find persuasive Petitioner’s view, and the supporting
`testimony of Dr. Anthony, that a skilled artisan would have recognized from
`Chin’s disclosure that the light spreading benefits of a diffuser provide for a
`“stronger reflected signal” that facilitates determining measured
`physiological parameters. Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:4–7, 8:25–29, 9:64–
`10:7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). Patent Owner simply provides no cogent basis to
`conclude that Chin’s diffuser would not function predictably as is disclosed,
`i.e., spreading light so that it passes through more tissue and blood, when
`used in conjunction with other types of sensor devices, such as those of
`Santos and Mendelson-1991. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 416 (“The
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
`We additionally find unavailing Patent Owner’s general argument that
`a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`applying a diffuser used in one type of oximeter sensor, such as that in Chin,
`to other types of oximeter sensors, such as those of Sarantos and Mendelson-
`1991. See, e.g., PO Resp. 24–25. We do not agree that “Chin fails to
`disclose any specific way of implement[ing]” its diffuser into a sensor. See
`id. at 24. It clearly does. Chin shows, at least in Figure 7B, a diffuser
`associated with a nostril sensor. Chin also does not limit its teachings as to a
`diffuser to any one particular type of sensor, e.g., a nostril sensor. We are
`
`
`9 “Also shown is an optional optical diffuser 180 for diffusing the light from
`emitter 176, which causes a further spreading or mixing of light and may
`enhance the amount of tissue penetrated in some instances.” Ex. 1006,
`8:25–29.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`not satisfied by Patent Owner’s arguments that some structural and
`operational differences between the sensors of Sarantos and Mendelson-
`1991 as compared with that of Chin means that a skilled artisan would not
`have expected success in combining those teachings. See id. at 24; see also
`id. at 25–29 (discussing differences between wrist-worn sensors and nostril
`sensors). A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary
`creativity. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It follows readily that a person of
`ordinary skill and creativity reasonably would have understood how to
`implement such diffusers in other types of heart rate or pulse oximeter
`sensors, such as those of Sarantos and Mendelson-1991, in structural
`configurations necessary to harness the recognized benefits of such
`diffusers. We credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony to that effect. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–101.
`Patent Owner’s and Dr. Madisetti’s opposing views are rooted only in
`speculation that a skilled artisan would not have appreciated the benefits of a
`diffuser in other sensors beyond Chin’s nostril sensor, which are intended
`for application to different body parts. See, e.g., PO Resp. 25–29; Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 69–71. Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti also seemingly attempt to draw
`distinctions between a wrist-worn “reflectance-type sensor” and a
`“transmittance-type sensor” for a nostril in connection with use of a diffuser.
`See PO Resp. 25–29; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69–71. Yet, those views overly focus on
`the specific configurations of single embodiments of each of the pertinent
`references and do not reflect an appropriate obviousness analysis that takes
`into account the inferences and creatives steps that a skilled artisan would
`employ. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695 B2
`
`challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Specifically,
`those views do not account adequately for Chin’s plain disclosure
`recognizing the general benefits of a diffuser and that its sensor may be
`attached “to any body part” in the form of either a “reflectance or a
`transmittance sensor.” See Ex. 1003, 2:4–7, 5:54–57. From at least that
`disclosure, a person of ordinary skill and creativity reasonably would have
`recognized that Chin contemplates various sensor types and that those
`sensors, includ
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
