Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: May 5, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER,and
`AMANDAF. WIEKER,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: May 5, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER,and
`AMANDAF. WIEKER,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`AppleInc. (‘Petitioner’) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1—30 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564
`
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the °564 patent”). Paper 2 (‘“Pet.”). Masimo Corporation
`
`(“Patent Owner”) waivedfiling a preliminary response. Paper 6 (“PO
`
`Waiver”).
`
`Wehaveauthority to determine whetherto institute an inter partes
`
`review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review
`
`may notbeinstituted unless it is determined that “the information presented
`
`in the petition filed under section 311 and anyresponsefiled under section
`
`313 showsthat there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board
`
`institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).
`
`For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`
`challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review onall
`
`groundsset forth in the Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties identify the following matters related to the °564 patent:
`
`Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-00048
`
`(C.D. Cal.);
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`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 Sept.9,
`
`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, [PR2020-01538 (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, IPR2020-01714 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,765 B1);
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01715 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,765 B1);
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01716 (PTAB Sept. 30,
`
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,194 B1);
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01722 (PTAB Oct.2,
`
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695 B2);
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01723 (PTAB Oct. 2,
`
`2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,470,695 B2);
`
`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).
`
`Pet. 3; Paper 3, at 1, 3-4.
`
`Patent Ownerfurther identifies certain issued patent applications, as
`
`well as other pending and abandoned applications, that claim priority to, or
`
`share a priority claim with, the °564 patent. Paper 3, at 1-2.
`
`C. The ’564 Patent
`
`The °564 patentis titled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System for
`
`Noninvasive Measurement of Blood Constituents,” and issued on April 21,
`
`2020, from U.S. Patent Application No. 16/725,292, filed December23,
`
`2019. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22), (45), (54). The 564 patent claimspriority
`
`througha series of continuation and continuation-in-part applicationsto
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 61/086,060, 61/086,108, 61/086,063, and
`
`61/086,057, each filed on August 4, 2008, as well as 61/091,732 filed on
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`August 25, 2008, and 61/078,228 and 61/078,207 both filed on July 3,
`
`2008.' Id. at codes (60), (63).
`
`The *564 patent discloses a two-part data collection system including
`
`a noninvasive sensor that communicates with a patient monitor. Id. at 2:47—
`
`51. The sensor includes a sensor housing, an optical source, and several
`
`photodetectors, and is used to measure a blood constituent or analyte, e.g.,
`
`oxygen or glucose.
`
`/d. at 2:38-46, 3:4-6. Thepatient monitor includes a
`
`display and a network interface for communicating with a handheld
`
`computing device. Jd. at 2:54—57.
`
`' The Office has madethe prior determination that the application leading to
`the 564 patent is not designated as an “AIA (FITF)” application. See
`Ex. 1002 at 102 (Notice of Allowability of March 3, 2020). We determine
`that based onthis prior determination, and the lack of any contrary evidence
`before us, the Petition was not required to be filed more than nine months
`after the date of the grant of the patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1).
`Instead, based on the record before us, 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(2) should
`apply, which allowsa petition to befiled after “the date of the grant of the
`patent.”
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Figure | of the °564 patent is reproduced below.
`
`100
`
`SENSOR 104
`
`MONITOR 109
`
`
`EMITTER
`~ DETECTORS
`INPUT OATA
`
` 104 Yo”
`108
`oO
`
`2
`
` SIGNAL
`
`PROCESSOR
`
`
`OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
`NOISE
`TISSUE
`SHIELD
`SHAPER
`NETWORK
`
`
`INTERFACE
`(
`7
`|
`
`3
`rs
`FIG. 1
`
`MEASUREMENT
`DATA
`
`‘
`114
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of data collection system 100 including
`
`sensor 101 and monitor 109. /d. at 11:56-67. Sensor 101 includes emitter
`
`104 and detectors 106. Jd. at 12:1-5. Emitter 104 emits light that is
`
`attenuated or reflected by the patient’s tissue at measurementsite 102. Id. at
`
`14:11-16. Detectors 106 capture and measurethelight attenuated or
`
`reflected from the tissue.
`
`/d. In response to the measured light,
`
`detectors 106 output detector signal 107 to monitor 109 through front-end
`
`interface 108. Jd. at 14:16-19, 36-42. Sensor 101 also mayincludetissue
`
`shaper 105, which maybe in the form of a convex surface that: (1) reduces
`
`the thickness of the patient’s measurementsite; and (2) provides more
`
`surface area from whichlight can be detected. Jd. at 11:7-23.
`
`Monitor 109 includes signal processor 110 and user interface 112. Id.
`
`at 15:27-29. “[S]ignal processor 110 includes processing logic that
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`determines measurements for desired analytes .
`
`.
`
`. based on the signals
`
`received from the detectors 106.” Jd. at 15:32-35. User interface 112
`
`presents the measurementsto a user on a display, e.g., a touch-screen
`
`display.
`
`/d. at 15:57-61. In responseto user input or device orientation,
`
`user interface 112 can “reorient its display indicia.” Jd. at 15:63-67. The
`
`monitor may be connected to storage device 114 and network interface 116.
`
`Id. at 16:4—22. In some embodiments, the monitor, including the display,is
`
`attached to the patient by a strap. Jd. at 17:56-59, 18:16-19.
`
`The *564 patent describes various examples of sensor devices.
`
`Figures 14D and 14F, reproduced below,illustrate sensor devices.
`
`FIG. 14D
`
`FIG. 14F
`
`Figure 14D illustrates a detector submount and Figure 14F illustrates
`
`portions of a detector shell. Jd. at 6:54-57. As shownin Figure 14D,
`
`multiple detectors 1410c are located within housing 1430 and under
`
`transparent cover 1432, on which protrusion 605b is disposed. Jd. at 36:40-
`
`47. Figure 14F illustrates detector shell 306f including detectors 1410c on
`
`substrate 1400c. Jd. at 37:20-21. In some embodiments, the detector shell
`
`includes walls to separate individual photodiode arrays andto “prevent or
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`reduce mixingoflight signals.” Jd. at 22:46-53. Substrate 1400cis
`
`enclosed by shielding enclosure 1490 and noise shield 1403, which include
`
`window 1492a and window 1492b,respectively, placed above detectors
`
`1410c. Id. at 22:20-36.
`
`Figures 4A and 4B, reproducedbelow,illustrate an alternative
`
`exampleof a tissue contact area of a sensor device.
`
`FIG. 4A
`
`FIG. 4B
`
`Figures 4A and 4Billustrate arrangements of protrusion 405 including
`
`measurementsite contact area 470. Jd. at 23:30-36. “[M]easurementsite
`
`contact area 470 can include a surface that molds bodytissue of a
`
`measurementsite.” Jd. “For example, the measurementsite contact area
`
`470 can be generally curved and/or convex with respect to the measurement
`
`site.” Jd. at 23:53-55. The measurementsite contact area includes windows
`
`420-423 that “mimic or approximately mimic a configuration of, or even
`
`house,a plurality of detectors.” Jd. at 23:61-24:8.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative and is reproduced below.
`
`1. A_user-worn physiological measurement device
`
`comprising:
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`[a] one or more emitters configured to emitlight into tissue
`of a user;
`
`[b] at least four detectors arranged on a substrate;
`
`[c] a cover comprising a protruding convex surface,
`wherein the protruding convex surface extends overall of the at
`least four detectors arranged on the substrate, wherein at least a
`portion of the protruding convex surface isrigid;
`
`[d] one or more processors configured to: receive one or
`more signals from at least one of the at least four detectors, the
`one or more signals responsive to at
`least a physiological
`parameter of the user; and process the one or more signals to
`determine measurements of the physiological parameter;
`
`[e] a network interface configured to communicate with a
`mobile phone;
`
`[f] a touch-screen display configured to provide a user
`interface,
`
`{g] wherein: the user interface is configured to display
`indicia responsive to the measurements of the physiological
`parameter, and
`
`{h] an orientation of the user interface is configurable
`responsiveto a user input;
`
`[i] a wall that surroundsat least the at least four detectors,
`wherein the wall operably connects to the substrate and the
`cover;
`
`[j] a storage device configuredto at least temporarily store
`at least the measurements of the physiological parameter; and
`
`[k] a strap configured to position the physiological
`measurementdevice ontheuser.
`
`Ex. 1001, 44:63-45:29 (bracketed lettering [a]—[k] added).
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`E. Applied References
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`
`Shermanetal., U.S. Patent No. 4,941,236, filed July 6, 1989,
`issued July 17, 1990 (Ex. 1013, “Sherman”);
`
`Ali et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,584,336 B1, filed March 1, 2000,
`issued June 24, 2003 (Ex. 1019, “Ali”’);
`
`Ohsakiet al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2001/0056243 A1, filed May 11, 2001, published December 27, 2001
`(Ex. 1009, “Ohsak1’’);
`
`Aizawa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2002/0188210 Al, filed May 23, 2002, published December 12, 2002
`(Ex. 1006, “Aizawa’’);
`
`Rantala et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,912,413 B2, filed
`September 12, 2003, issued June 28, 2005 (Ex. 1022, “Rantala”); and
`
`Goldsmith et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2007/0093786 A1, filed July 31, 2006, published April 26, 2007
`(Ex. 1011, “Goldsmith).
`
`Pet. 10.
`
`Petitioner also submits, inter alia, the Declaration of Thomas W.
`
`Kenny, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-30 are unpatentable based upon the
`
`following grounds(Pet. 9):
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|35 U.S.C.§
`
`1-10 and 13-30
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith
`
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, Goldsmith,
`and Sherman
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, Goldsmith,
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`103
`
`
`
`1-10 and 13-30
`
`103
`
`03
`
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, Goldsmith,
`and Ali
`/
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, Goldsmith,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|_35 U.S.C. §
`
`|Ss Ai, and Sherman 103
`
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, Goldsmith,
`Ali, and Rantala
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Forpetitions 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) (2020). Accordingly, we construe the claims according to the
`
`standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Based on ouranalysis of Petitioner’s challenges presented at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, wefind that one claim term requires express construction.
`
`Petitioner raises the issue of the proper scope of the claim term
`
`“processor” to a person ofordinary skill in the art. Pet. 51. Petitioner
`
`submits “[t]he °564 patent does not define ‘processor,’” but argues that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term to mean “part
`
`of a computer system that operates on data,” consistent with the definition
`provided in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.” Id.; Ex. 1012, 5.
`
`First, we observe that the claim language provides an understanding
`
`of the functions of the claimed one or more processers, which are
`39
`66
`
`“configured to:”
`
`“receive one or more signals” and “process the one or more
`
`signals to determine measurements of the physiological parameter.”
`
`? Petitioner adds page numbers 1-6 to Exhibit 1012. We refer to the added
`page numbers whenciting to Exhibit 1012 in this Decision.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`Ex. 1001, 45:6-12. The Specification describes several distinct processors,
`
`but it also describes a “signal processor” as the device used for processing
`
`signals. See, e.g., id. at 9:50-—55, 14:36—-42, 15:27-56, 33:36-47. Based on
`
`the current record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the term
`“processor.” See Ex. 1012, 5. This definition is consistent with the general
`
`operation of the signal processorin the ’564 patent, where the signal
`
`processoris described to include “processing logic that determines
`
`measurements .
`
`.
`
`. based on the signals received from the detectors.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:31-35; 15:35-39 (“signal processor 110 can be implemented
`
`using one or more microprocessors or subprocessors. .
`
`., digital signal
`
`processors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field
`
`programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), combinations of the same”’).
`
`Wealso offer guidance as to the meaning of“an orientation of the
`
`user interface is configurable responsive to a user input” also found in
`
`claim 1. To determine the meaningof the claim limitation “an orientation of
`
`the user interface is configurable responsive to a user input,” we look to the
`
`Specification of the °564 patent. The Specification states “the user
`
`interface 112 can include a flip screen, a screen that can be moved from one
`
`side to another on the monitor 109, or can include an ability to reorientits
`
`display indicia responsive to user input or device orientation.” Ex. 1001,
`
`15:63-67. Based on the evidence before us, and based on limited discussion
`
`of “orientation” in the °564 patent, we understand the claim limitation “an
`
`orientation of the user interface is configurable responsive to a user input” to
`
`at least encompassreorienting the display indicia responsive to user input.
`
`Based on ouranalysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we conclude that no further claim terms require express
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`construction at this time. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`B. Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented andthe prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat 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
`
`(2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.? 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 bythe patentat issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a combination ofpriorart
`
`elements would have produceda 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
`
`3 Patent Ownerdoesnot present objective evidence of non-obviousnessat
`this stage.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`burden of persuasion nevershifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Weanalyze 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 that
`
`possessed by a person having “‘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.”
`
`Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 J§ 21-22). Petitioner also notes that “[a]dditional
`
`education in a relevant field or industry experience may compensate for one
`
`of the other aspects of the [person of ordinary skill in the art]described
`
`above. Id.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we generally adopt Petitioner’s
`
`assessmentas set forth above, which appears consistent with the level of
`
`skill reflected in the Specification andpriorart.
`
`D. Obviousness over the Combined Teachings of
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith
`
`Petitioner presents undisputed contentions that claims 1-10 and 13-30
`
`of the °564 patent would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
`
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith. Pet. 10-91.
`
`I. Overview ofAizawa (Ex. 1006)
`Aizawais a U.S. patent application publication titled “Pulse Wave
`
`Sensor and Pulse Rate Detector,” and discloses a pulse wave sensorthat
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`detects light output from a light emitting diode and reflected from a patient’s
`
`artery. Ex. 1006, codes (54), (57).
`
`Figure 1(a) of Aizawa is reproduced below.
`
`FIG.
`
`1 (a)
`
`1
`
`Figure 1(a) is a plan view of a pulse wave sensor. Jd. | 23. As shown in
`
`Figure 1(a), pulse wave sensor2 includes light emitting diode (“LED”) 21,
`
`four photodetectors 22 symmetrically disposed around LED 21, and
`
`holder 23 for storing LED 21 and photodetectors 22. Jd. Aizawa discloses
`
`that, “to further improve detection efficiency, ... the numberof the
`
`photodetectors 22 may be increased.” Jd. | 32, Fig. 4(a). “The sameeffect
`
`can be obtained when the numberof photodetectors 22 is 1 and a plurality of
`
`light emitting diodes 21 are disposed around the photodetector 22.” Id. ¥ 33.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`Figure 1(b) of Aizawa is reproduced below.
`
`FIG.
`
`1 (b)
`
`Figure 1(b) is a sectional view of the pulse wave sensor. Jd. 7 23. As shown
`
`in Figure 1(b), pulse wave sensor 2 includes drive detection circuit 24 for
`
`detecting a pulse wave by amplifying the outputs of photodetectors 22. Id.
`
`4 23. Arithmetic circuit 3 computes a pulse rate from the detected pulse
`
`wave and transmitter 4 transmits the pulse rate data to an “unshown
`
`display.” Jd. The pulse rate detector further includes outer casing 5 for
`
`storing pulse wave sensor2, acrylic transparent plate 6 mountedto detection
`
`face 23a of holder 23, and attachmentbelt 7. Jd.
`
`Aizawadiscloses LED 21 and photodetectors 22 “are stored in
`
`cavities 23b and 23c formedin the detection face 23a” of the pulse wave
`
`sensor. Jd. 24. Detection face 23a “is a contact side between the holder 23
`
`and a wrist 10, respectively, at positions where the light emitting face 21s of
`
`the light emitting diode 21 andthe light receiving faces 22s of the
`
`photodetectors 22 are set back from the above detection face 23a.” Id.
`
`Aizawafurther discloses that “‘a subject carries the above pulse rate detector
`
`1 on the innerside of his/her wrist 10 with a belt in such a mannerthat the
`
`light emitting face 21s of the light emitting diode 21 faces down (on the
`
`wrist 10 side).” Jd. § 26. Furthermore,“the above belt 7 is fastened such
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`that the acrylic transparent plate 6 becomesclose to the artery 11 of the wrist
`
`10. Thereby, adhesion between the wrist 10 and the pulse rate detector 1 is
`
`improved.” Jd. J 26, 34.
`
`2. Overviewof Ohsaki (Ex. 1009)
`
`Ohsakiis a U.S. patent application publication titled “Wristwatch-type
`
`Human Pulse Wave Sensor Attached on Back Side of User’s Wrist,” and
`
`discloses an optical sensor for detecting a pulse wave of a humanbody.
`
`Ex. 1009, code (54), 73. Figure 1 of Ohsaki is reproduced below.
`
`FIG.
`
`|
`
`(BACK SIDE)
`
`2
`
`SKS?
`SSSIOTRSS
`KS
`SS
`57
`
`S
`
`‘SS —§
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a cross-sectional view of pulse wavesensor 1 attached on
`
`the back side of user’s wrist 4. Jd. J§ 12, 16. Pulse wave sensor| includes
`
`detecting element 2 and sensor body 3. Id. { 16.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Figure 2 of Ohsaki, reproduced below,illustrates further detail of
`
`detecting element2.
`
`FIG. 2
`
`!
`proce rererrny
`{DRIVE
`{CMCtg gg
`
`15 7
`
`MICRO-
`COMPUTER
`
`!
`}
`
`+
`
`1
`
`
`16
`REFLECTED LIGHT
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a mechanism for detecting a pulse wave. Id. { 13.
`
`Detecting element 2 includes package5, light emitting element6, light
`
`receiving element 7, and translucent board 8. Jd. 17. Light emitting
`
`element 6 and light receiving element 7 are arranged on circuit board 9
`
`inside package 5. Id.
`
`“[T]ranslucent board 8 is a glass board whichis transparentto light,
`
`and attached to the opening of the package 5. A convex surface is formed
`
`on the top of the translucent board 8.” Jd. “[T]he convex surface of the
`
`translucent board8 is in intimate contact with the surface of the user’s skin,”
`
`preventing detecting element 2 from slipping off the detecting position of the
`
`user’s wrist. Jd. § 25. Ohsaki describes that when a translucent board has a
`
`flat surface, the detected pulse wave maybe adversely affected by
`
`movementofthe user’s wrist. Jd. By preventing the detecting element from
`
`slipping, the convex surface suppresses “variation of the amountof the
`
`reflected light which is emitted from the light emitting element 6 and
`
`reachesthe light receiving element 7 by being reflected by the surface ofthe
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`user’s skin.” Jd. Additionally, the convex surface prevents penetration by
`
`“noise such as disturbancelight from the outside.” Jd.
`
`Sensor body 3 is connected to detecting element 2 by signalline 13.
`
`Id. § 20. Signal line 13 connects detecting element2 to drivecircuit 11,
`
`microcomputer 12, and a monitor display (not shown). Jd. Drive circuit 11
`
`drives light emitting element 6 to emit light toward wrist 4. Jd. Detecting
`
`element 2 receives reflected light which is used by microcomputer 12 to
`
`calculate pulse rate. Jd. “The monitor display showsthe calculated pulse
`
`rate.” Id.
`
`3. Overview of Goldsmith (Ex. 1011)
`
`Goldsmith is a U.S. patent application publication titled “Watch
`
`Controller for a Medical Device,” and discloses a watch controller device
`
`that communicates with an infusion device to “provid[e] convenient
`
`monitoring and control of the infusion pump device.” Ex. 1011, codes (54),
`
`(57).
`
`Goldsmith’s Figure 9A and 9Bare reproduced below.
`
`FIG.TA
`
`FIG 16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`Figure 9A and Figure 9A are respective front and rear views of a combined
`
`watch and controller device. Jd. J] 30-31. As shown in Figure 9A, watch
`
`controller 900 includes housing 905, transparent member 950, display 910,
`
`input devices 92Sa—c, scroll wheel 930, and wrist band 940. Jd. 4] 85-86.
`
`Figure 9B showsrear-side cover 960, and a rear view of housing 905, scroll
`
`wheel930, and wrist band 940. Jd.
`
`Goldsmith discloses the watch controller may interact with one or
`
`more devices, such as infusion pumpsor analyte monitors. Id. | 85; see also
`
`id. | 88 (‘The analyte sensing device 1060 may be adaptedto receive data
`
`from a sensor, such as a transcutaneous sensor.”). Display 910 “may display
`
`at least a portion of whatever information and/or graph is being displayed on
`
`the infusion device display or on the analyte monitor display,” such as,e.g.,
`
`levels of glucose. Jd. § 86. The display is customizable in a variety of
`
`configurations including user-customizable backgrounds, languages, sounds,
`
`font (including font size), and wall papers. Jd. Jf 102, 104. Additionally,
`
`the watch controller may communicate with a remotestation, e.g., a
`
`computer, to allow data downloading. Jd. { 89 (including wireless). The
`
`remote station mayalso include a cellular telephone to be “used as a conduit
`
`for remote monitoring and programming.” Jd.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 1 (Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith)
`
`Petitioner presents undisputed contentions that claim 1 would have
`
`been obvious over the combined teachings of Aizawa, Ohsaki, and
`
`Goldsmith. Pet. 10-63.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`i. “[pre] A user-worn physiological measurement device
`comprising ”’
`
`Onthis record, the cited evidence supports Petitioner’s undisputed
`
`contentions that Aizawadiscloses this limitation. Pet. 41-42.
`
`Figure 2 of Aizawa showsa user wearing a pulse wave sensoron the
`
`innerside of his/her wrist. Ex. 1006 4 0026. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on Figure 2 of Aizawa and the corresponding disclosure sufficiently
`
`disclose the subject matter of the preamble.* See Pet. 42.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s stated reasoningis
`
`sufficiently supported.°
`
`ii. ““[a] one or more emitters configured to emit light into
`tissue ofa user”
`
`Onthis record, the cited evidence supports Petitioner’s undisputed
`
`contentions that Aizawa discloses a pulse wave sensorincluding LED 21
`
`that emits light into a user’s tissue. Pet. 42-43; Ex. 1006 § 23 (SLED 21...
`
`for emitting light having a wavelength of a near infrared range’’), {27
`
`(explaining that light is emitted toward the wrist), Fig. 1(b) (depicting
`
`4 Whether the preambleis limiting need not be resolvedat this stage of the
`proceeding, because Petitioner showssufficiently for purposesofinstitution
`that the recitation in the preamble is satisfied by the priorart.
`
`> Petitioner further contends that the subject matter of the preambleis taught
`by the combination of Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith. Pet. 41-42 (arguing
`that it would have been obviousto incorporate the pulse wave sensor of
`Aizawa (as modified by Ohsaki) into the wrist-worn watch controller device
`in Figures 9A and 9B of Goldsmith, to realize a user-worn physiological
`measurement device). Because Figure 2 of Aizawa teaches a user-wom
`physiological measurement device, further analysis of the combination of
`Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Goldsmith is not necessary for this particular claim
`limitation.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`LED 21 facing user wrist 10), Fig. 2 (depicting a pulse wave sensor worn on
`
`a user’s wrist).
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s stated reasoningis
`
`sufficiently supported.
`
`ili. “[b] at leastfour detectors arranged on a substrate”
`
`Onthis record, the cited evidence supports Petitioner’s undisputed
`
`contentions regarding this limitation. Pet. 44-46.
`
`Petitioner contends that pulse wave sensor depicted in Figure 1(a) of
`
`Aizawa discloses four photodetectors 22. Pet. 44; see e.g., Ex. 1006 § 27
`
`(“[FJour photodetectors 22 are disposed around the light emitting diode
`
`21.”).
`
`Relying on the cross-section view of Figure 1(b) of the pulse wave
`
`detector of Aizawa, Petitioner further contends photodetectors 22 are
`
`secured on a substrate illustrated in Petitioner’s annotated Figure 1(b).
`
`Pet. 24, 45. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 1(b) of Aizawa is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`FIG.
`
`1 (b)
`Drive Detection Circuit 24 1
`2
`
`= First
`
`surface of eetenhinaN son
`5,
`“
`
`substrate
`
`Photodetector 22
`
`Annotated Figure 1(b) depicts a structure, identified by Petitioner with
`
`brown highlight and the added label “Substrate,” arranged in proximity to
`
`photodetectors 22. Pet. 45. Petitioner concedes that Aizawa“doesnotlabel
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 B1
`
`or describe” a substrate, but contends a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(‘“POSITA”) would have understoodthat “Aizawa’s photodetectors are
`
`secured to the [physiological measure device] .
`
`.
`
`. through such [as] a
`
`substrate” depicted in annotated Figure 1(b). Pet. 24. Dr. Thomas W.
`
`Kennytestifies that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the substrate
`
`provides physical support and electrical connectivity and is connected to the
`
`holder 23.” Ex. 1003 J 71; see also Pet. 24 (citing to testimony of Dr.
`
`Kenny). Onthe current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the
`
`structure identified in annotated Figure 1(b) of Aizawais a substrate, and
`
`that photodetectors 22 are arranged on the substrate.
`
`Petitioner further contends that if Aizawa is found notto disclose a
`
`substrate, then Ohsaki teachesthis feature. Pet. 25. Similar to the device of
`
`Aizawa, Ohsaki teaches a pulse wave sensor comprising a light emitting
`
`element6 (e.g., a LED) andalight receiving element(e.g., a photodetector).
`
`Ex. 1009 9 17. “The light emitting element 6 and light receiving element 7
`
`are... arranged onthe circuit board 9.” Jd. Relying on the testimony of
`
`Dr. Kenny, Petitioner contends a POSITA would have modified the pulse
`
`wave sensor of Aizawato include a substrate, such as circuit board 9 of
`
`Ohsaki, to secure the photodetectors of Aizawa and enable the detectors to
`
`send signals to other elements in the device. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 4 72-
`
`73; Ex. 1006 JJ 2-5, 8-16, 23, 27-29, 32-33, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4(a); Ex. 1009
`
`q 17, Fig. 2).
`
`Atthis stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s stated reasoningis
`
`sufficiently supported, including by the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Kenny.
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01713
`Patent 10,624,564 Bl
`
`iv. “[c] a cover comprising a protruding convex surface,
`wherein the protruding convex surface extends overall
`ofthe at leastfour detectors arranged on the substrate,
`wherein at least a portion ofthe protruding convex
`surface is rigid”
`
`Onthis record, the cited evidence supports Petitioner’s undisputed
`
`contentions regarding these limitations. Pet. 19-23, 47-49.
`
`Petitioner contends the pulse wave sensor depicted in Figure 1(b) of
`
`Aizawa comprises “a flat transparent plate 6 that contacts the user’s wrist.”
`
`Pet. 19; see, e.g., Ex. 1006 J 26 (“[T]he acrylic transparent plate 6 becomes
`
`close to the artery 11 of the wrist 10.’’). In Petitioner’s view,the flat plate of
`
`Aizawais unfavorable, in that it “would have slipped along the user’s wrist,
`
`resulting in variations in the light detected by the photodetectors.” Pet. 20.
`
`Petitioner proposes modifyingthe flat acrylic plate of Aizawa, with
`
`the convex translucent board 8 depicted in Figure 2 of Ohsaki. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner relies on Ohsaki’s teaching:
`
`Ohsaki explains that “if the translucent board 8 hasa flat
`surface, the detected pulse wave is adversely affected by the
`movementof the user’s wrist as shown in FIG. 4B,” but that if
`“the translucent board 8 has a convex surface...variation of the
`amountof the reflected light...that reaches the light receiving
`element 7 is suppressed,” APPLE-1009, 9[0025]. Thus, when a
`protruding convex coveris used, “the pulse wave can be detected
`without being affected by the movementofthe user’s wrist 4 as
`shownin FIG. 4A.” Id.
`
`Pet. 21-22
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
