Filed: October 8, 2021
`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Jacob L. Peterson (Reg. No. 65,096)
`William R. Zimmerman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: AppleIPR2020-1537-553@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01537
`U.S. Patent 10,588,553
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Jacob L. Peterson (Reg. No. 65,096)
`William R. Zimmerman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: AppleIPR2020-1537-553@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01537
`U.S. Patent 10,588,553
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 3
`
`A. Ground 1 ......................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That Ohsaki’s
`Board Is Longitudinal And Even Small Changes
`Result In Slippage ................................................................ 3
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Ohsaki’s Board Is Longitudinal ................................. 3
`
`Petitioner’s Additional Arguments Regarding
`Ohsaki Are Unpersuasive .......................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly Asserts That Ohsaki’s Board
`Prevents Slipping “On Either Side Of The User’s
`Wrist Or Forearm” ............................................................. 11
`
`A Convex Cover Does Not Enhance Aizawa’s Light-
`Gathering Ability ............................................................... 14
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Petitioner Contradicts Its Admissions ..................... 14
`
`The Principle Of Reversibility Is Irrelevant To
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination ......................... 16
`
`Petitioner’s Other New Theories Are Similarly
`Misplaced ................................................................. 19
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Dispute That A Convex Cover
`Would Be More Prone To Scratches ................................. 23
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner Establishes No Motivation To Modify
`Aizawa’s Sensor To Include Both Multiple Detectors
`And Multiple Emitters ....................................................... 24
`
`B. Ground 2 ....................................................................................... 26
`
`C. Ground 3 ....................................................................................... 27
`
`III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 10, 14
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..................................................................... 9
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Declaration of Jeremiah S. Helm in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Motion
`
`Declaration of William R. Zimmerman in Support of Pro Hac
`Vice Motion
`
`“Measurement Site and Photodetector Size Considerations in
`Optimizing Power Consumption of a Wearable Reflectance Pulse
`Oximeter,” Y. Mendelson, et al., Proceedings of the 25th IEEE
`EMBS Annual International Conference, 2003, pp. 3016-3019
`(“Mendelson 2003”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539
`(April 22, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, IPR2020-01537, IPR2020-01539
`(April 23, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01536, IPR2020-01538 (April 24, 2021)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01536, IPR2020-01538 (April 25, 2021)
`
`Frank H. Netter, M.D., Section VI Upper Limb, Atlas of Human
`Anatomy (2003), Third Edition (“Netter”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01536
`
`Exhibit List, Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2020-01520
`
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01520
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny in Apple Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, IPR2020-01536, IPR2020-
`01537, IPR2020-01538, IPR2020-01539 (September 18, 2021)
`
`Exhibit List, Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner attempts to rewrite a flawed petition that misunderstood the cited
`
`references and basic optical principles.
`
` Petitioner’s new arguments are
`
`inconsistent with its prior positions, conflict with the cited references, and
`
`constitute a hindsight-driven reconstruction of Masimo’s claims.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Masimo did not respond to Petitioner’s three purported
`
`motivations to modify Aizawa’s “flat cover…to include a lens/protrusion…similar
`
`to Ohsaki’s translucent board.” Reply 7; Pet. 27-28. That is incorrect.
`
`Petitioner’s first motivation is to “improve adhesion.” Id. Masimo directly
`
`responded, pointing out that Aizawa discloses a palm-side sensor and that
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination has a shape that would increase slipping at
`
`Aizawa’s measurement location. Patent Owner Response (“POR”) 17-27. Indeed,
`
`Aizawa teaches a flat surface improves adhesion on the wrist’s palm-side and
`
`Ohsaki teaches a convex surface tends to slip on the wrist’s palm-side. POR 27-
`
`39. Both references thus undermine Petitioner’s proposed motivation of improved
`
`adhesion. Rather than address these contrary teachings, Petitioner asserts that
`
`Ohsaki’s sensor has no particular shape and reduces slipping at any body location.
`
`Reply 13-20. That contradicts Ohsaki, which illustrates its sensor’s longitudinal
`
`shape and explains how even slightly changing the sensor’s orientation or
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`measurement location results in slipping. Ex. 1009 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-3B, ¶¶[0019],
`
`[0023]. Petitioner’s first motivation fails.
`
`Masimo also responded to Petitioner’s second motivation, a purported
`
`“improve[d] detection efficiency.” Reply 7. As Masimo explained, Petitioner
`
`admitted that adding a convex cover to Aizawa’s sensor would direct light away
`
`from the sensor’s peripherally located detectors. POR 39-46. Thus, Petitioner’s
`
`proposed combination decreases optical signal strength and detection efficiency—
`
`the opposite of Petitioner’s motivation to “improve detection efficiency.”
`
`Petitioner’s second motivation fails.
`
`Petitioner’s third motivation is to “protect the elements within the sensor
`
`housing.” Reply 7. As Masimo explained, a POSITA would have viewed a
`
`convex surface as inferior to a flat surface due to an increased risk of scratching.
`
`POR 47-48. Petitioner now apparently agrees, conceding the disadvantage of
`
`scratching but arguing “multiple advantages” would “outweigh any possibility of
`
`scratching.” Reply 28-29. Petitioner establishes no advantages for a convex
`
`surface in the proposed combination, let alone multiple advantages. Regardless,
`
`Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would have chosen a convex cover—
`
`the one alternative Petitioner admits suffers from scratching—from the many
`
`different alternatives for protection. Ex. 2009 394:18-396:17.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Accordingly, none of Petitioner’s asserted motivations demonstrate that a
`
`POSITA would have been led to Masimo’s innovative claimed technology. The
`
`Board should reject Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Ground 1
`1.
`A POSITA Would Have Understood That Ohsaki’s Board Is
`Longitudinal And Even Small Changes Result In Slippage
`a) Ohsaki’s Board Is Longitudinal
`The petition argued that a POSITA would have modified Aizawa’s flat cover
`
`“to include a lens/protrusion…similar to Ohsaki’s translucent board 8.” Pet. 27.1
`
`Ohsaki Fig. 1 (left) & Fig. 2 (right) (annotated, POR 10-11)
`
`
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Petitioner’s proposed combination places the lens/protrusion over Aizawa’s
`
`circular sensor. Pet. 44 (below).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s combination (Pet. 41, 44)
`
`Petitioner never explained how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`change Ohsaki’s longitudinal board into a circular cover. This change eliminates
`
`the shape that Ohsaki indicates prevents slipping. POR 11-16, 19-25.
`
`Lacking any credible basis to change the shape of Ohsaki’s board, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Ohsaki’s board has no particular shape. Reply 13-15. Petitioner thus
`
`embraces the vague testimony of its declarant, Dr. Kenny, who testified he did not
`
`know the shape of Ohsaki’s board and that the board could be “circular or square
`
`or rectangular.” Ex. 2008 68:21-70:1, 71:7-72:10; Ex. 2027 162:15-20. But
`
`Petitioner cannot allege that Ohsaki’s board has no geometry while also arguing
`
`Aizawa’s cover would be modified “to include a lens/protrusion…similar to
`
`Ohsaki’s translucent board 8.” Pet. 27.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Regardless, Ohsaki itself refutes Petitioner’s position.
`
` As Masimo
`
`explained, Ohsaki describes its detecting element (2) as having one side (Figure 2,
`
`below left in purple) longer than the other (Figure 1, below center in purple). POR
`
`14-16; Ex. 1009 ¶[0019].
`
`
`
`Ohsaki Fig. 2 (left) & Fig. 1 (center) (Ex. 1009 ¶[0019], color added)
`(showing long and short directions, respectively);
`Plan view illustrating board’s shape (right) (Ex. 2004 ¶¶38-42)
`
`
`Ohsaki’s Figure 2 (above left) shows the “long” side of the detecting element (2)
`
`(purple) and illustrates the board (8) (blue) spanning most of that “long” side.
`
`Ohsaki’s Figure 1 (above center) shows the “short” side of the detecting element
`
`(2) (purple) and illustrates the board (8) (blue) as spanning only a small part of that
`
`“short” side. A POSITA would have concluded that Ohsaki’s board (8) and
`
`detecting element (2) both have a longitudinal shape (exemplified above right).
`
`POR 14-16; Ex. 2004 ¶¶39-42.
`
`Petitioner argues that “Ohsaki never specifies that FIGS. 1 and 2 are
`
`different views of the same device.” Reply 15. But Ohsaki never describes
`
`Figures 1 and 2 as illustrating different devices and instead discusses them
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`together. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶[0016]-[0027]. Regardless, even considered separately,
`
`Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a longitudinal board. Figure 1 shows a convex board that
`
`is much thinner than the “short” side of a detecting element. Figure 2 shows a
`
`convex board nearly the same length as the “long” side of a detecting element. Ex.
`
`2004 ¶¶38-42. Petitioner cannot maintain these figures illustrate no geometry for
`
`the board. Reply 13-15.
`
`Petitioner’s position also conflicts with Ohsaki’s explanation of why its
`
`sensor’s longitudinal shape and placement are important. Ohsaki teaches that even
`
`small changes in its sensor’s orientation or body location result in “a tendency to
`
`slip.” Ex. 1009 ¶¶[0019], [0023], Figs. 3A-3B. Masimo and its declarant, Dr.
`
`Madisetti, explained that Ohsaki’s shape and intended placement take advantage of
`
`the watch-side forearm/wrist area’s particular bone structure to prevent slipping.
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶¶54-56. As illustrated below, Ohsaki’s longitudinal structure sits within
`
`the forearm/wrist area’s anatomy when properly oriented (below left) but tends to
`
`slip when rotated away from this orientation (below right). Id.; POR 18-19.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`
`Interaction of Ohsaki’s longitudinal structure with watch-side of wrist/forearm (Ex.
`2004 ¶54)
`
`Ohsaki teaches that aligning its longitudinal shape across the wrist (above
`
`right)—instead of up-and-down the arm (above left)—results in “a tendency to
`
`slip.” Ex. 1009 ¶[0019]. As Dr. Madisetti explained, changing Ohsaki’s
`
`longitudinal shape to a circular structure, as Petitioner proposes, would result in
`
`slippage because a circular sensor would not fit into the anatomical opening in the
`
`wrist/forearm. Ex. 2004 ¶¶54-55; POR 20-23. Petitioner has no answer to these
`
`arguments.2
`
`
`2 Dr. Kenny admitted a POSITA would have considered anatomical details
`
`“such as…the illustrations that Dr. Madisetti provided” when designing a convex
`
`surface that prevents slipping, but included no such anatomical figures with any of
`
`his opinions. Ex. 2027 248:18-249:6, 254:17-255:11. Dr. Kenny likewise agreed
`
`user anatomy plays a role in preventing motion. Ex. 2027 158:16-159:8.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`b)
`Petitioner’s Additional Arguments Regarding Ohsaki Are
`Unpersuasive
`additional
`arguments
`
`shape
`
`are
`
`Petitioner’s
`
`regarding Ohsaki’s
`
`unpersuasive. First, Petitioner argues there is nothing “requiring” Ohsaki’s board
`
`to have a longitudinal shape. Reply 15. But the issue is not what Ohsaki
`
`requires—the issue is what Ohsaki teaches to a POSITA. Ohsaki teaches that its
`
`longitudinal shape is necessary to prevent slipping, directly undermining
`
`Petitioner’s alleged motivation. Indeed, Ohsaki teaches that even small changes in
`
`sensor orientation or measurement location result in slippage. Ex. 1009 ¶¶[0019],
`
`[0023]; POR 19-25. Thus, Ohsaki would have taught a POSITA that Petitioner’s
`
`proposed circular convex cover would not improve adhesion.
`
`Second, Petitioner asserts that Ohsaki “nowhere describes ‘translucent board
`
`8’ and ‘detecting element 2’ as having the same shape.” Reply 13-14. But
`
`Masimo never argued that Ohsaki discloses that its “translucent board 8” and
`
`“detecting element 2” must have an identical shape. Masimo explained why a
`
`POSITA would understand Ohsaki’s board has a longitudinal shape and why a
`
`POSITA would not have been motivated to use a longitudinally shaped board in
`
`Petitioner’s proposed circular combination. POR 14-16, 19-27.
`
`Third, Petitioner retreats to generic “inferences and creative steps” to allege
`
`obviousness without identifying what those inferences and creative steps might be
`
`or how they would yield any benefit. Reply 10-11, 19-20. Unsupported and
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`conclusory arguments “[u]ntethered to any supporting evidence, much less any
`
`contemporaneous evidence, … ‘fail to provide any meaningful explanation for why
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references at
`
`the time of this invention.’” TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Fourth, Petitioner argues “a person of ordinary skill is also a person of
`
`ordinary creativity,” and Ohsaki’s features need not be “bodily incorporated.”
`
`Reply 16. But Petitioner’s resulting combination eliminates the longitudinal
`
`directionality Ohsaki describes as important to avoid slipping. POR 19-25.
`
`Petitioner never explains how a POSITA’s “creativity” would prevent a circular
`
`convex surface from slipping on the wrist’s palm-side. Reply 16. Petitioner
`
`ignores Ohsaki’s teachings and thus violates the fundamental rule that “a prior
`
`patent must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that
`
`would lead away from the invention in suit.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`
`810 F.2d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`Fifth, Petitioner claims Masimo argued it “is not the ‘convex surface’ that
`
`improves adhesion (i.e., reduces slippage)
`
`in Ohsaki,” but
`
`instead
`
`the
`
`“‘longitudinal shape.’” Reply 13. In reality, Masimo argued a POSITA would
`
`have understood Ohsaki’s convex board must also have a longitudinal shape
`
`oriented up-and-down the watch-side of the user’s wrist/forearm. POR 14-16, 19-
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`25. Ohsaki explains that a sensor positioned across the user’s wrist “has a
`
`tendency to slip off.” Ex. 1009 ¶[0019]. Ohsaki also explains that a convex
`
`surface on the palm-side of the user’s wrist “has a tendency to slip.” Id. ¶[0023],
`
`Figs. 3A-3B.3 A “tendency to slip” is the opposite of Petitioner’s asserted
`
`motivation of improving adhesion. “An inference of nonobviousness is especially
`
`strong where the prior art’s teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as
`
`to why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.”
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009).
`
`Sixth, Petitioner suggests Masimo’s arguments are limited to just the shape
`
`of Ohsaki’s board. Reply 13-16. That is also incorrect. Masimo additionally
`
`argued that the circular shape of Petitioner’s proposed combination leads to
`
`slipping. As illustrated below, Petitioner’s proposed circular sensor (and its
`
`convex surface) will negatively interact with the radius and ulna, resulting in
`
`slipping. POR 21-23; Ex. 2004 ¶¶55-57.
`
`
`3 Both declarants agree that Figures 3A-3B (discussed in Ohsaki ¶¶[0023]-
`
`[0024]) compare a convex surface’s slipping on the back- and palm-side of the
`
`wrist, respectively. See Ex. 2008 157:5-158:1 (“I believe that the element being
`
`tested in Figure 3(a) and 3B has a convex cover”), 158:15-20; Ex. 2004 ¶¶76-79.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`Ohsaki teaches that its sensor helps prevent slipping when aligned with the user’s
`
`arm, but slips when positioned across the user’s wrist. Ex. 1009 ¶[0019]; see also
`
`id. ¶¶[0006], [0024]. Petitioner’s proposed circular sensor cannot avoid anatomical
`
`interactions that result in slipping. POR 21-23. Petitioner’s arguments regarding
`
`the shape and orientation of Ohsaki’s board do not overcome Ohsaki’s express
`
`disclosures.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly Asserts That Ohsaki’s Board Prevents
`Slipping “On Either Side Of The User’s Wrist Or Forearm”
`Petitioner also fails to overcome Ohsaki’s express disclosure that Ohsaki’s
`
`convex board only prevents slipping on the wrist’s watch-side. Ex. 1009 ¶[0023],
`
`Figs. 3A-3B. Petitioner argues that Ohsaki’s benefits are not specific to a
`
`particular side of the wrist. Reply 16-17. But Ohsaki teaches the opposite: small
`
`changes in the measurement location, including from the wrist’s watch-side to the
`
`palm-side, cause “a tendency to slip.” Ex. 1009 ¶[0023]. Ohsaki illustrates this
`
`slipping in Figures 3A-3B, which the petition and reply both ignore. Ohsaki also
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`consistently emphasizes its “sensor is worn on the back side of a user’s wrist.” Id.
`
`Abstract; see also id. Title, ¶¶[0008], [0009], [0014], [0016], [0023]-[0024].
`
`In contrast to Ohsaki, Aizawa limits its sensor to measurements from the
`
`wrist’s palm-side close to the arteries. POR 12-14, 17-18, 28-33. Aizawa
`
`repeatedly teaches a flat surface improves adhesion on the wrist’s palm-side. POR
`
`28-33; Ex. 2004 ¶¶67-73. Petitioner never demonstrates that a POSITA would use
`
`Ohsaki’s convex board on Aizawa’s sensor when Ohsaki’s board tends to slip on
`
`the wrist’s palm-side—Aizawa’s required measurement site. POR 27-39; Ex. 2004
`
`¶¶67-84; Ex. 1009 ¶[0023], Figs. 3A-3B.4
`
`Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges Aizawa’s palm-side measurement
`
`requirement. Reply 17. But Petitioner nonsensically argues that because Ohsaki’s
`
`board has a “tendency to slip” on the wrist’s palm-side, that “would have further
`
`motivated” a POSITA to change Aizawa’s flat adhesive cover to a convex surface.
`
`Reply 17-18. But a tendency to slip is the opposite of Petitioner’s “improved
`
`adhesion” motivation. POR 27-39. A POSITA would have credited both
`
`Aizawa’s and Ohsaki’s teachings and concluded that changing the flat adhesive
`
`4 Dr. Kenny provided no analysis of Ohsaki’s Figures 3A-3B, which
`
`evaluate slipping at different measurement locations. Dr. Kenny confirmed
`
`Ohsaki’s paragraphs 15, 17, 25, and Figures 4A-4B, which he relied on for
`
`support, do not address measurement location. Ex. 2027 136:12-140:13.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`plate in Aizawa’s palm-side sensor to a convex surface would detrimentally
`
`increase slipping. POR 27-39.
`
`Petitioner asserts “a POSITA would have understood that Ohsaki’s benefits
`
`are provided…on either side of the user’s wrist or forearm.” Reply 17. Petitioner
`
`first points to Ohsaki’s claim 1, which refers to the “back side of a user’s wrist or a
`
`user’s forearm.” Id. (emphasis in original). But Ohsaki discloses a “wristwatch-
`
`type” device (Ex. 1009 Title), and thus the “forearm” refers to the same anatomical
`
`junction—not some other measurement location. POR 20-23, 36; Ex. 2004 ¶¶54-
`
`59, 80. Petitioner also points to Ohsaki’s claim 3 and states that the claim does not
`
`mention “a backside of the wrist or forearm.” Reply 17. But Ohsaki’s claim 3
`
`likewise does not mention a convex surface and is therefore irrelevant.5 Moreover,
`
`as discussed above, Ohsaki’s overall disclosure undermines Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination.
`
`
`5 Ohsaki’s other claims support Masimo’s position. For example, claims 1
`
`and 2 specify a convex surface used on the back side of the wrist or forearm. Ex.
`
`1009 Claims 1, 2. Claim 6 requires a longitudinal shape and orientation
`
`incompatible with Petitioner’s proposed circular sensor. See Ex. 1009 Claim 6
`
`(depending from claim 5), Claim 5 (requiring linear sensor arranged “in a
`
`longitudinal direction of the user’s arm”).
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Petitioner additionally cites Ohsaki’s disclosure of “intimate contact”
`
`between the convex surface and the user’s skin. Reply 18-19. Petitioner argues
`
`this “intimate contact” would necessarily improve Aizawa’s flat adhesive plate on
`
`the palm-side of the wrist. But, as discussed, Ohsaki teaches its convex board
`
`tends to slip on the wrist’s palm-side regardless of any intimate contact. Ex. 1009
`
`¶[0023], Figs. 3A-3B. In contrast, Aizawa teaches a flat surface improves
`
`adhesion on the wrist’s palm-side. Ex. 1006 ¶[0013].
`
`Finally, Petitioner cites generic “inferences and creative steps” and argues
`
`that “adding a convex protrusion to Aizawa’s flat plate would provide an
`
`additional adhesive effect that would reduce the tendency of that plate to slip.”
`
`Reply 19-20. Petitioner again does not explain the “creative steps” a POSITA
`
`might take. “Creative steps” would not lead a POSITA to ignore both Aizawa’s
`
`teaching that a flat plate improves adhesion on the wrist’s palm-side and Ohsaki’s
`
`teaching that a convex surface tends to slip on the wrist’s palm-side. DePuy, 567
`
`F.3d at 1326 (“inference of nonobviousness is especially strong” if cited art
`
`undermines proffered reason for combination).
`
`3.
`
`A Convex Cover Does Not Enhance Aizawa’s Light-Gathering
`Ability
`a)
`Petitioner Contradicts Its Admissions
`Petitioner’s proposed combination also makes no sense because it places a
`
`convex cover over Aizawa’s peripherally located detectors. As Masimo
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`explained, a convex cover would direct light away from Aizawa’s peripheral
`
`detectors and decrease optical signal strength—the opposite of Petitioner’s asserted
`
`motivation of improving detection efficiency. POR 39-46. Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Kenny admitted that a convex cover condenses light towards the sensor’s center
`
`and away from the sensor’s periphery. Id. Petitioner illustrated this principle:
`
`
`Petitioner’s Illustration, IPR2020-01520 (Ex. 2019 at 45)
`
`Dr. Kenny confirmed that when light enters a convex surface, “the incoming light
`
`is ‘condensed’ toward the center.” Ex. 2020 at 69-70. Dr. Kenny also confirmed
`
`that the convex surface would cause “more light in the center than at the outer
`
`edge in this example.” Ex. 2006 204:1-13. Dr. Kenny agreed, “that’s because
`
`light’s being directed towards the center and away from the edge….” Id. 204:14-
`
`20; Ex. 2004 ¶¶86-87.
`
`None of Petitioner’s reply arguments overcome these admissions. Instead,
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes Masimo’s position as asserting “that a convex cover
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`somehow focuses all light at a central point.” Reply 27; see also id. 23 (“cannot
`
`focus all incoming light at a single point”), 24 (“focus all light at the center of the
`
`sensor”), 25 (“all incoming light at the center”). But Masimo never argued that all
`
`incoming light condenses to a single point. Instead, Masimo explained that a
`
`convex surface would direct relatively more light towards the center and away
`
`from Aizawa’s peripheral detectors. POR 40-42; Ex. 2004 ¶¶89, 93.
`
`b)
`
`The Principle Of Reversibility Is Irrelevant To Petitioner’s
`Proposed Combination
`Petitioner tries to avoid its admissions with a new theory based on the
`
`“principle of reversibility.” Reply 21. Petitioner claims that “[f]ar from being a
`
`new theory, this core concept is applied in Aizawa itself.” Id. 22. As support,
`
`Petitioner quotes a stray statement from Dr. Kenny’s declaration that used the word
`
`“reversibility” when providing a background discussion of Aizawa. Id. (quoting
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶79, 83). Nowhere did Dr. Kenny or Petitioner previously analyze or
`
`espouse the principle of reversibility now asserted by Petitioner. See Pet. 22
`
`(discussing “reversibility” of Aizawa’s configuration). Petitioner’s cited sentence
`
`does not even discuss optics. Petitioner’s new theory is improper, denying
`
`Masimo the opportunity to respond with expert testimony.
`
`Petitioner’s new theory is also irrelevant. Petitioner argues the path of a
`
`reflected light ray would trace an identical route forward and backward. Reply 21-
`
`22. This argument assumes conditions that are not present when tissue scatters and
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`absorbs light. Even Petitioner admits that tissue randomly scatters and absorbs
`
`light rays, which would cause forward and reverse light paths to be unpredictable
`
`and very likely different. See id. 23 (reflectance-type sensors measure “random”
`
`light that was “reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered by the skin and other
`
`tissues and the blood before it reaches the detector”); Ex. 2027 188:6-17, 29:11-
`
`30:7, 31:8-32:3, 38:17-42:6. Petitioner never explains how the principle of
`
`reversibility could apply to such “random” scattered and absorbed light.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Kenny testified that “light backscattered from the tissue can go
`
`in a large number of possible directions, not any single precise direction.” Ex.
`
`2027 17:12-18; see also id. 17:19-19:2 (reiterating random path and absorbance),
`
`38:17-40:13, 40:14-42:6 (“Every photon tracing that particular path…would have a
`
`potentially different interaction with the tissue and it would be scattered,
`
`potentially, in a different direction than the photon arriving before and after it.”).
`
`In contrast, the principle of reversibility provides that “a ray going from P to S [in
`
`one direction] will trace the same route as one going from S to P [the opposite
`
`direction]” assuming there is no absorption or scattering. Ex. 1040 at 51
`
`(illustrating diffuse reflection), 53 (defining principle of reversibility), 207
`
`(principle of reversibility requires no absorption). Dr. Kenny also testified that the
`
`principle of reversibly applies to a light ray between two points and admitted it
`
`does not apply to randomly scattered light in bulk. Ex. 2027 207:9-208:22. In that
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`circumstance, Dr. Kenny merely testified that light “can go” or “could go” along
`
`the same path. Id. 207:17-209:21, 210:8-211:6. That hardly supports Petitioner’s
`
`argument that light will necessarily travel the same paths regardless of whether the
`
`LEDs and detectors are reversed.
`
`Petitioner accordingly misapplies the principle of reversibility to the
`
`proposed combination. The principle of reversibility does not even address the
`
`relevant issue: whether changing Aizawa’s flat surface to a convex surface results
`
`in more light on Aizawa’s peripherally located detectors. See Ex. 2027 212:3-14.
`
`Petitioner attempts to use the theory of reversibility to argue that one could simply
`
`reverse the LEDs and detectors and obtain the same benefit from a convex surface.
`
`Reply 21-22. However, the principle of reversibility does not indicate that one
`
`could reverse sensor components and still obtain the same benefit from a
`
`convex—as opposed to a flat—surface. Dr. Kenny specifically testified that the
`
`benefit of a convex surface would not be “obvious” if one moves the “LEDs and
`
`detectors around….” Ex. 2006 86:19-87:6.6
`
`
`6 Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Reply 22, Dr. Madisetti did not “express
`
`ignorance” of Fermat’s principle: his testimony referred to “a stationary OPL,” an
`
`undefined term in the passage about which he was asked. Ex. 1041 89:12-19.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Madisetti’s earlier testimony cited “Fermat’s law.” Id. 33:17-34:13.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`c)
`Petitioner’s Other New Theories Are Similarly Misplaced
`Petitioner next argues that Masimo “ignores the behavior of scattered light in
`
`a reflectance-type pulse sensor.” Reply 23. Not so. Masimo’s arguments directly
`
`address a reflectance-type pulse sensor, and Masimo cited Petitioner’s and Dr.
`
`Kenny’s admissions about how a convex surface redirects incoming light. POR
`
`39-46. Petitioner then raises a series of new arguments against a position that
`
`Masimo never took—that a convex surface focuses all light to a single point.
`
`Reply 23-24. None of Petitioner’s arguments demonstrate a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to change Aizawa’s flat surface to a convex surface to improve
`
`signal strength.
`
`First, Petitioner asserts that “Ohsaki’s convex cover provides at best a slight
`
`refracting effect, such that light rays that otherwise would have missed the
`
`detection area are instead directed toward that area as they pass through the
`
`interface provided by the cover.” Reply 25. But that directly undermines
`
`Petitioner’s provided motivation “to
`
`include a
`
`lens/protrusion…similar
`
`to
`
`Ohsaki’s” to “improve detection efficiency.” Pet. 27-28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶86-88);
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶88 (asserting the lens/protrusion would gather and refract light towards
`
`Aizawa’s detectors). This new “slight refracting effect” argument trivializes
`
`Petitioner’s proposed motivation and conflicts with its prior admissions that “the
`
`incoming light is ‘condensed’ toward the center” (Ex. 2020 at 69-70).
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01537
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Second, Petitioner attempts to distinguish Figure 14B in Masimo’s patent as
`
`showing the impact of a convex surface on collimated light instead of diffuse
`
`backscattered light. Reply 25-27. But Masimo’s patent makes no such distinction.
`
`See POR 41-42. Moreover, Dr. Kenny admitted “one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would expect a diffuse light source encountering a convex lens of the sort that
`
`we’re contemplating today, would lead to convergence of the light on the opposite
`
`side of the lens, in general” and that there would be “a convergence of most of the
`
`light rays.” Ex. 2007 423:7-424:18.
`
`Third, Petitioner argues that “a convex cover allows more
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
