Case No. IPR2020-01033
`US Patent No. RE47,249
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-01033
`US Patent No. RE47,249
`_____________________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`US Patent No. RE47,249
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-01033
`US Patent No. RE47,249
`_____________________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01033
`Patent No. RE47,249
`
`
`Pursuant to the July 28, 2021 Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument
`
`(Paper 33) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), Petitioner Sotera Wireless, Inc. hereby files
`
`its Demonstratives for use at Oral Argument, attached hereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr., Reg. No. 36,032
`Daisy Manning, Reg. No. 66,369
`Nathan P. Sportel, Reg. No. 67,980
`Jennifer E. Hoekel, Reg. No. 48,330
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`(314) 480-1500 Telephone
`(314) 480-1505 Facsimile
`PTAB-RTelscher@huschblackwell.com
`PTAB-DManning@huschblackwell.com
`Nathan.Sportel@huschblackwell.com
`PTAB-JHoekel@huschblackwell.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Sotera Wireless, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01033
`Patent No. RE47,249
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of September 2021, the foregoing was
`
`served via electronic mail to the attorneys of record for the RE249 patent at the
`
`following address:
`
`
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133), 2swl@knobbe.com
`Jacob Peterson, (Reg. No. 65,096), 2jup@knobbe.com
`Irfan A. Lateef (Reg. No. 51,922), 2ial@knobbe.com
`Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No.63,051), 2bcc@knobbe.com
`Jarom D. Kelser (Reg. No. 57,046), 2jzk@knobbe.com
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice) jeremiah.helm@knobbe.com
`SoteraIPR249@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Reg. No. 36,032
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`Masimo Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00967, IPR2020-01019, IPR2020-01033
`U.S. Patent Nos. RE47,244, RE47,353, RE47,249
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`All Claims of the RE244, RE353, and
`RE249 Patents are Unpatentable
`
`•
`
`Like the original ‘121 patent, the RE244, RE353, and RE249 reissue patents only teach parameter-specific
`suspension of active alarms to allow sufficient time to treat an alarming condition.
`• The claims of the RE244, RE353, and RE249 patents encompass both predetermined delays and delays of
`unknown duration.
`• Parameter-specific alarm delays were well-known in the art to prevent false or nuisance alarms, and
`parameter-specific alarm suspensions were well-known to provide intermittent warnings of an alarm
`condition and to prevent subsequent alarms while an alarm condition is treated by a caregiver.
`• Baker-1 teaches all limitations of the independent claims under an improper construction covering pre-
`alarm delays.
`• Saidara and Malangi teach all limitations of the independent claims under a proper construction covering
`post-alarm suspensions.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Masimo’s Arguments are Unavailing
`
`• Masimo urges the Board to construe the claims to cover undisclosed parameter-specific pre-alarm
`delays, rendering the stated purpose of the claimed inventions nonsensical.
`• Conversely, Masimo urges the Board to improperly import “predetermined” into the “periods of time”
`recited in the claims.
`• Masimo’s arguments against Baker-1 are premised on importation of “predetermined” into “periods of
`time.”
`• Masimo’s arguments against Saidara and Malangi are premised on a mischaracterization of the
`references and Sotera’s proposed combination.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`• The RE244, RE353, and RE249 patents – titled “Alarm Suspend System” – are reissues of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,153,121 and filed years after Sotera’s accused system was on the market.
`Priority date of RE244, RE353, RE249 patents: July 29, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`‘121 patent: filed August 26, 2014; issued October 6, 2015
`
` RE244, RE353, RE249 patents: filed May 1, 2017; issued February 19, 2019 (RE244; RE249) and April 16, 2019 (RE353).
`• The specification and claims of the original ‘121 patent are directed to systems that monitor
`multiple physiological parameters that enable users to suspend active alarms for periods of
`time corresponding to the treatment time for a particular alarming physiological parameter.
`(EX1015, claims 1, 13, 18; EX1003, ¶¶ 26-28)
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 3-5, 10-12; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 4-6, 10-12; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 4-6, 10-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Specification of the Challenged Patents
`1. An alarm automatically activates when a physiological parameter
`measurement is outside of predetermined limits.
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 2:18-20
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:30-31
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 4:42-46
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 5:42-45
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 5:51-53
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 6:1-4
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-10; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 2-4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 2-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 2-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Specification of the Challenged Patents
`2. After an alarm activates, a user may temporarily silence the audible alarm by
`pressing an alarm silence button or initiating a silence request.
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 2:33-36
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:1-2
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:31-32
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 4:58-60
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 4:46-48
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 5:53-56
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 5:38-41
`EX1001 (RE244), 6:5-7
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-10; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 2-4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 2-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 2-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Specification of the Challenged Patents
`
`3. The alarm “resumes,” “retriggers,” or “reactivates” after the alarm
`suspension duration.*
`* If the parameter measurement changes during the alarm
`suspension by a sufficient out-of-limit amount, the alarm
`reactivates:
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 2:37-38
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:4-6
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 6:19-22
`* If the parameter measurement becomes within limits
`during the suspension, the alarm deactivates:
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:34-36
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 6:14-16
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-10; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-10; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 2-4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 2-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 2-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Specification of the Challenged Patents
`
`• Figure 4 illustrates the alarm suspension system.
`EX1001.
`
`• An alarm is suspended (430) only after the alarm is
`turned “on” (420) as a result of an out-of-limit
`parameter (414) and in response to a “silence request”
`(422).
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), p. 9; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 9-10; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 9-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Specification of the Challenged Patents
`Alarm suspension times preferably correspond “to the relative length of time it
`takes for a person to respond to medical treatment for a parameter
`measurement outside of the predetermined limits.”
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 2:38-42
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 2:61-67
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-9; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-9; Paper 1 (RE249), p. 9; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 1, 4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 1, 4; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 1, 4-5.
`
`EX1001 (RE244), 3:6-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Original ‘121 Patent and
`Reissued Claims
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Original ‘121 Patent
`
`• The claims of the original ‘121 patent were consistent
`with the teachings of the specification.
`•
`EX1015, claims 1, 13, 18; see also EX1046, pp. 11-14.
`
`• Similarly, all prior family members require suspension
`or deactivation of an active alarm in response to a
`“silence request” or “alarm suspension indication,” or
`upon actuation of a “silence button.”
`•
`EX1012, EX1013, EX1014.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 10-12; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 10-12; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 10-12; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 4-5 n. 3; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 5 n. 5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 5-6 n. 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Reissue Amendments to ‘121 Patent Claims
`
`All claims of the RE244, RE353, and RE249 were amended to eliminate the following
`limitations:
`1.
`“receive, from a user, an indication of a parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time
`… selected from a one of a plurality … ”;
`“activate an alarm in response to determining that an alarm activation threshold has been
`satisfied by the physiological parameter measurement”;
`“receive an alarm suspension indication”;
`“in response to receiving the alarm suspension indication, suspend the alarm for the
`indicated parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time.”
`
`3.
`4.
`
`2.
`
`EX1023, pp. 2-3, 5-6, 7-9; Paper 1 (RE244), p. 11; Paper 1 (RE353), p. 11; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 11-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`The Reissued Claims – RE244 Patent
`
`• The RE244 patent claims were also amended
`to require “a parameter-specific delay or
`suspension period of time.”
`
`•
`
`Independent claim 1 requires the “parameter-
`specific delay or suspension period of time”
`be (1) one of a plurality; and (2) different from
`a second parameter-specific alarm delay or
`suspension period of time corresponding to a
`second physiological parameter.
`•
`Independent claims 13 and 18 only
`require limitation (2) above.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1023 (RE244), pp. 2-3, 5-6, 7-9; Paper 1
`(RE244), pp. 12.
`
`
`
`The Reissued Claims – RE353 Patent
`
`• The RE353 patent claims, like the ‘121
`patent, require “a parameter-specific
`suspension period of time.”
`
`•
`
`Independent claim 1 requires the
`“parameter-specific suspension period of
`time” be (1) one of a plurality; and (2)
`different from a second parameter-specific
`alarm suspension period of time
`corresponding to a second physiological
`parameter.
`•
`Independent claims 13 and 18 only
`require limitation (2) above.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1023 (RE353), pp. 2-3, 5-8; Paper 1
`(RE353), pp. 11-12.
`
`
`
`The Reissued Claims – RE249 Patent
`
`• The RE249 patent claims were also
`amended to require “a parameter-specific
`hold period of time.”
`
`•
`
`Independent claim 1 requires the
`“parameter-specific hold period of time”
`be (1) one of a plurality; and (2) different
`from a second parameter-specific alarm
`delay or suspension period of time
`corresponding to a second physiological
`parameter.
`•
`Independent claims 13 and 18 only
`require limitation (2) above.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1023 (RE249), pp. 2-3, 6, 7-8; Paper 1
`(RE249), pp. 11-12.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• “alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244)/
`“alarm suspension period of time” (RE353)/ “alarm hold period of time”
`(RE249).
` “alarm activation threshold” (RE244/RE353) and “activation threshold”/ “alarm
`condition” (RE249) are related to interpretation of these terms.
` The alarm delay, suspension, or hold periods of time do not have to be
`“predetermined.”
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-14; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-14, ; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-15; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 2-8; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 2-9; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 2-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The intrinsic record compels a construction of these terms as “time periods in
`which an activated alarm is temporarily silenced or deactivated.”
` None of these terms appear in the specification.
` The specification only teaches parameter-specific suspensions of active alarms.
` The original ‘121 patent claims were limited to suspensions of active alarms.
` The Examiner interpreted the claims as directed to suspensions of active alarms.
` The stated purpose of the RE244, RE353, and RE249 patents is nonsensical if construed to cover pre-
`alarm delays.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-14; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-14; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-15; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 1-4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 1-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 1-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The specification only discloses a system
`that:
`(1) compares a measured parameter to set limits;
`(2) automatically activates an alarm when the
`parameter is out-of-limits;
`(3) thereafter, “suspends” or “deactivates” the
`alarm for a “parameter-specific” duration in
`response to a user request; and
`(4) “resumes,” “retriggers,” or “reactivates” the
`alarm after the suspension duration.
`EX1001, Abstract, 2:18-20, 2:33-42, 2:55-3:6, 3:28-36, 3:58-65, 4:42-48,
`4:58-63, 5:51-6:14; EX1003, ¶¶ 21-25, 45; EX1040, ¶¶ 47-48, 63-71.
`
`• “alarm delays” referenced once as
`“other alarm features” that are not
`parameter-specific:
`
`EX1001, 6:38-40; EX1003, ¶24.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 8-14; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 8-14; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 8-15; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 1-4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 1-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 1-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of time”
`(RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The Examiner issued a rejection of the RE244, RE249 and RE353 patent claims based
`on an interpretation requiring post-alarm suspensions, consistent with the original
`‘121 patent claims.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 11-12; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 12-13; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 12-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1021 (RE244), p. 19;
`EX1021 (RE353), p. 18;
`EX1021 (RE249), pp. 17-18.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The stated purpose of the RE244, RE353,
`and RE249 patents would be rendered
`nonsensical if construed to cover pre-alarm
`delays.
`
`EX1001, 2:38-42
`
`EX1001, 2:45-60
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 1, 4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 1, 4-5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 1, 5; EX1040, ¶¶47-49, 72.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• “alarm activation threshold” (RE244/RE353) relates to interpretation of “alarm delay
`or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of time” (RE353).
`
`RE244 Patent, Limitation 1(f):
`
`RE353 Patent, Limitation 1(e):
`
`EX1001 (RE244); see also limitations 13(e) and 18(h)
`
`EX1001 (RE353); see also limitations 13(d) and 18(g)
`• If the alarm activation of the alarm is not required, claims would mean the same
`thing if they recited “alarm activation threshold.” (EX1040, ¶70)
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), p. 3; Paper 27 (RE353), p. 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`• “activation threshold”/ “alarm condition”
`(RE249) relate to interpretation of “alarm hold
`period of time” (RE249).
`
`RE249 patent, limitation 1(e)
`
`• Only “alarm condition” appears in the
`specification and is only described as a
`condition that has triggered an alarm.
`
`EX1001 (RE249); see also id. limitations 13(d) and 18(f).
`
`EX1001 (RE249), 4:49-55; see also 2:33-38
`
`Paper 26 (RE249), p.4; EX1040, ¶¶71-72.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• “Instrument manager 260” is the only part of the system described as controlling alarm suspensions
`(EX1040, ¶ 71):
`Fig. 3
`
`EX1001, 5:38-41.
`
`• The specification does not disclose any embodiment
`wherein an out-of-limit parameter does not
`automatically generate an alarm, or how a processor
`would determine to not activate an alarm and
`proceed immediately to an alarm suspension when a
`parameter is out-of-limits.
`
`EX1001, 5:51-54.
`
`Fig. 4
`
`EX1001, 6:4-7.
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), p. 2-4; Paper 27 (RE353), p. 2-4; Paper 26 (RE249), p. 2-4; EX1040. 64-68, 70-71.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• Masimo’s expert, Mr. Goldberg, agrees with Sotera’s expert that pre-alarm delays
`and post-alarm suspensions are distinct concepts (EX1003, ¶¶ 35-39; EX1042, 115:10-
`16) …
`
`EX1042, 115:10-16.
`… but was unable to identify where the specification teaches an alarm delay occurring
`before the alarm is activated (EX1042, 107:1-123:4).
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 2, 4; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 2, 5; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 2, 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• Mr. Goldberg testified that the specification teaches classifying parameters
`in relation to the treatment time to get an out-of-limit parameter to a
`within-limit measurement:
`
`EX1042, 101:10-13.
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), p. 1; Paper 27 (RE353), p. 1; Paper 26 (RE249), p.1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• Alarm delay, suspension, or hold periods of time do not have to be
`“predetermined.”
` Board was correct in its Institution Decision that the claims do not require
`“predetermined” time periods.
`•
`Paper 13 (RE244), pp. 25-26; Paper 12 (RE353), pp. 25-25; Paper 11 (RE249), pp. 11-13.
` Neither the specification nor claims limit the claimed “periods of time” to predetermined
`periods of time.
` The RE244, RE353, and RE249 do not identify any advantages of predetermined alarm
`delays or any disadvantages of other types of alarm delays (e.g., algorithmic).
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 5-8; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 5-9; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 6-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The claims do not limit the claimed “periods of time” to “predetermined”
`periods of time.
` The word “predetermined” does not appear in any claim.
` A PHOSITA would understand “period of time” to mean a time interval, whether
`predetermined or not. (EX1040, ¶ 58; EX1043, 363:22-365:2; 365:16-19; 376:15-22)
`
`EX1045, pp. 5
`
`EX1044, pp. 5-6
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 5-8; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 5-9; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 6-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of time”
`(RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• Other claim language does not require importation of “predetermined” into
`“period of time”
`
`Limitation 1(g): initiate a parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension
`period of time corresponding to the physiological parameter …
`
`RE244
`
`• An unknown “period of time” may
`be “initiated.”
`•
`EX1040, ¶87; EX1044, ¶¶88-89 p. 4; EX1045, p. 4; EX1043,
`363:22-365:2; 365:16-19; 384:9-18.
`• An unknown “period of time” may
`“expire” or “pass.”
`•
`EX1040 (RE244, RE353), ¶87; EX1040, ¶90; EX1044, p. 3;
`EX1045, p. 3.
`
`RE353
`
`RE249
`
`Limitation 1(h): activate an alarm for the physiological parameter in
`response to expiration of an amount of delay or suspension associated
`with the parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension period of time.
`Limitation 1(f): determine that an alarm suspension should be initiated for a
`parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time corresponding to the
`physiological parameter …
`
`Limitation 1(h): activate the alarm when the measurement of the
`physiological parameter satisfies the alarm activation threshold after the
`parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time has passed.
`Limitation 1(f): access an alarm hold initiator for a parameter-specific
`alarm hold period of time corresponding to the physiological parameter …
`
`Limitation 1(i): subsequent to the parameter-specific alarm hold period of
`time passing, activate the indication of the alarm while the measurement of
`the physiological parameter satisfies the activation threshold.
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 11-12; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 12-14; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 12-14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of time”
`(RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• Other claim language does not require importation of “predetermined”
`into “period of time”
`• Dependent claims requiring a “selected”
`period of time do not mean the periods of
`time must be predetermined.
`•
`EX1003, ¶88; EX1040 (RE244, RE353), ¶¶59, 88-89; EX1040
`(RE249), ¶¶59, 91-93; EX2018, 506:22-507:13.
`
`RE244
`
`RE353
`
`Limitation 1(g): [receive, from a user, an indication of] initiate a parameter-
`specific alarm delay or suspension period of time
`corresponding to the physiological parameter, the parameter-specific alarm
`delay or suspension period of time being [selected from] one of a plurality of
`parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension periods of time …
`Limitation 1(f): [receive, from a user,] determine that an [indication of] alarm
`suspension should be initiated for a parameter-specific
`alarm suspension period of time corresponding to the physiological parameter,
`the parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time being [selected from]
`one of at least a plurality of parameter-specific alarm suspension periods of
`time …
`Limitation 1(f): [receive, from a user, an indication of] access an alarm hold
`initiator for a parameter-specific alarm [suspension] hold period of time
`corresponding to the physiological parameter, the parameter-specific alarm
`[suspension] hold period of time being [selected from] one of a plurality of
`parameter-specific alarm [suspension] hold periods of time …
`
`•
`
`If a “selected” period of time implies a
`predetermined time period, independent
`claims not so limited.
`•
`EX1040, ¶59; EX1001 (RE244, RE353, RE249), claims 1, 13,
`18.
`
`RE249
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 7, 12-13; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 8, 14; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 8, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of time”
`(RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`Sister Reissue Application No. 16/274,052
`
`
`
`• Masimo knows how to claim
`“predetermined” periods of time.
`EX2020, pp. 38-39; EX1040, ¶61.
`• Because both predetermined and
`algorithmic-based alarm delays
`were known in the art, a PHOSITA
`would understand that, in the
`absence of any disavowal, the
`claims cover both types of delays.
`EX1005; EX1007; EX1040, ¶¶53-54.
`
`
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 15-17, 19-20; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 16-17, 19-20; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 16-17, 19-20; Paper 28 (RE244), p. 5; Paper 27 (RE353), p. 6; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 6-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The specification does not limit the claimed “periods of time” to “predetermined”
`periods of time.
`
`EX1001, 3:3-6.
`• A PHOSITA would understand a “timer” may “track” a known or unknown “duration”
`of time. EX1040, ¶¶51-52.
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), p. 5; Paper 27 (RE353), p. 6; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 6-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“alarm delay or suspension period of time” (RE244) / “alarm suspension period of
`time” (RE353) / “alarm hold period of time” (RE249)
`
`• The RE244, RE353, and RE249 do not criticize or purport to solve any problems relating to alarm delays
`that are not predetermined or are otherwise of unknown duration. (EX1040 ¶¶ 54-55)
`• The problem the challenged patents purport to solve is only with regard to a single suspension
`duration for all physiological parameters. (EX1040 ¶¶ 54-55)
`
`EX1001, 2:55-60
`• Masimo’s criticism of alarm delays or suspensions of unknown duration also applies to a construction
`requiring predetermined delays or suspensions. (EX1040 (RE244, RE353), ¶¶ 81-83; EX1040 (RE249), ¶¶82-83 ).
`
`Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 6-7; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 7-8; Paper 26 (RE249), pp.7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Background of Patient
`Monitoring
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`State of the Art of Patient Monitoring
`
`• Parameter-specific pre-alarm
`delays have been known in
`the art since at least 1968, as
`disclosed in Halpern.
`
`
`
`EX1025 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 5:13-63; see also
`EX1026 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 4:14-29; EX1027
`(RE244, RE353, RE249), 33:42-50; EX1003, ¶37-38.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), p. 15; Paper 1 (RE353), p. 15; Paper 1 (RE249), p.15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1025 (RE244,
`RE353, RE249),
`5:43-63.
`
`
`
`State of the Art of Patient Monitoring
`
`• Post-alarm suspensions were
`well-known in the art before
`the priority date of the RE244,
`RE353, and RE249 patents.
`
`
`
`EX1028 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 2:6-12, 32-37; EX1029
`(RE244, RE353, RE249), 4:14-29; EX1030 (RE244, RE353,
`RE249), 33:42-50; EX1031 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 13:1-
`6, 42-47; EX1003, ¶37-39.
`
`EX1028 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 2:32-37.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), p. 15; Paper 1 (RE353), p. 15; Paper 1 (RE249), p.15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`State of the Art of Patient Monitoring
`
`• Multi-parameter patient monitoring systems were well-known in the art before the
`priority date of the RE244, RE353, and RE249 patents.
` The challenged patents recognize multi-parameter monitoring systems were well-
`known in the prior art. (EX1001 (RE244, RE353, RE249), 1:36-51)
` Prior art owned by Masimo (2002) describes and claims multi-parameter monitoring
`devices. (EX1047, (63), claims 1, 19, 7:6-11)
` All three experts agree multi-parameter patient monitoring was well-known in the art.
`(EX1042, 59:4-14; EX2018, 366:9-367:2; 369:10-371:2; 382:14-386:22; EX1040 (RE244), ¶103; EX1040 (RE353), ¶101; EX1040 (RE249), ¶105)
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 15-17, 19-21; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 15-17, 19-21; Paper 1 (RE249), pp. 15-17, 19-21; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 23, 25; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 22-23, 25-26; Paper 26 (RE249),
`pp. 22-23, 25-26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Pre-Alarm Delay Prior Art
`Batchelder
`Baker-1
`
`Baker-2
`
`EX1005, Fig. 3
`
`EX1006, Figs. 5-6
`
`EX1007, Fig. 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Post-Alarm Suspension Prior Art
`Saidara
`Malangi
`
`EX1008, Fig. 4D
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1010, p. 7 (filing p. 21)
`
`41
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`• Grounds 1-4 are directed to a construction requiring pre-alarm
`delays.
`
`• Grounds 5-6 are directed to a construction requiring post-alarm
`suspensions.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Obviousness
`in View of Baker-1
`
`RE244: Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 23-26
`RE353: Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 23-25
`RE249: Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, and 24
`
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,736 (1997) - Baker-1
`
`EX1005
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 15-16; Paper 1 (RE353), p. 15; Paper 1 (RE249), p. 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Baker-1
`
`• Baker-1 is directed to the reduction of false or nuisance alarms in patient
`monitoring, and in particular, pulse oximetry. (EX1005, 1:27-39)
`
`• Baker-1 explains that inhibiting alarms
`based on a “combination of the amount of
`time and the amount by which a threshold
`is past [sic]” solves the problem of pre-
`alarm delays of a “fixed” duration that do
`not account for the severity of the
`parameter measurement.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 15-16; Paper 1 (RE353), p. 16; Paper 1 (RE249), p. 16; Paper 28 (RE244), pp. 9-10; Paper 27 (RE353), pp. 9-10; Paper 26 (RE249), pp. 9-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1005, 1:40-50.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Baker-1
`• Baker-1 discloses embodiments that utilize algorithms to calculate different alarm delays for
`SpO2 and pulse rate based on the amount of time and amount by which a SpO2 or pulse rate
`measurement crosses a SpO2 or pulse rate threshold.
`
`• An alarm is generated when the
`integral value 86 (Isat(n) and Irate (n))
`exceeds the integral threshold 74:
`
`EX1005, Fig. 3.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 34-38; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 34-38; Paper 1 (RE249), pp 34-38; EX1005, 3:18-31, 5:29-38.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`
`
`Baker-1
`• Different alarm delay durations result from a patient’s SpO2 and pulse rate measurements, the
`SpO2 or pulse rate thresholds (“Tsat” and “Trate”), and the saturation and pulse rate integral
`thresholds 74.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Shorter delays result from more
`severe parameter measurements
`
`Shorter delays result from lowering
`the SpO2 or pulse rate thresholds and
`integral thresholds.
`
`• No alarm will activate of the
`parameter measurement returns
`within limits before the integral
`threshold is reached.
`
`Paper 1 (RE244), pp. 34-38; Paper 1 (RE353), pp. 34-38; Paper 1 (RE249), pp 34-38; EX1005, 3:18-55; 5:29-38.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`© 2021 Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`EX1003 (RE244), ¶¶ 79-84, EX. A, pp. 1-2;
`EX1003 (RE353), ¶¶ 80-85, EX. A, pp. 1-2;
`EX1003 (RE249), ¶¶ 78-83, EX. A, pp. 1-2.
`
`
`
`Obviousness in view of Baker -1
`Independent Claim 1
`
`• Masimo’s arguments are premised on importing “predetermined” into “period of time.”
`• Disputed claim limitations of independent claim 1 for the RE244, RE353, and RE249 patents:
`
`RE244
`Limitation 1(g): initiate a parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension period
`of time corresponding to the physiological parameter, the parameter-specific
`alarm delay or suspension period of time being one of a plurality of parameter-
`specific alarm delay or suspension periods of time, the parameter-specific alarm
`delay or suspension period of time being different from at least one other
`parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension period of time corresponding to at
`least one other physiological parameter for which the one or more processors are
`configured to determine at least one measurement; and
`
`RE353
`Limitation 1(f): determine that an alarm suspension should be initiated for a
`parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time corresponding to the
`physiological parameter, the parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time
`being one of at least a plurality of parameter-specific alarm suspension periods of
`time, the parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time being different
`from at least one other parameter-specific alarm suspension period of time
`corresponding to at least one other physiological parameter for which the one or
`more processors are configured to determine at least one measurement;
`
`RE249
`Limitation 1(f): access an alarm hold initiator for a parameter-specific alarm
`hold period of time corresponding to the physiological parameter, the parameter-
`specific alarm hold period of time being one of a plurality of parameter-specific
`alarm hold periods of time, the parameter-specific alarm hold
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
