`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 38
`Entered: October 13, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
` IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 26, 2021
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`RUDOLPH TELSCHER, JR., ESQ.
`
`Husch Blackwell, LLP
`
`190 Carondelet Plaza
`
`Suite 600
`
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHEILA SWAROOP, ESQ.
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street
`# 14
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, August
`26, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EDT, by video/telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` - - - - -
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Good afternoon. This is Judge Kinder.
`
`Good afternoon everyone and with me on the panel today are
`
`Judges Cocks and Chagnon, and today we have four IPR
`
`proceedings that we're going to hear oral argument in. Each IPR
`
`is captioned Soter a Wireless as Petitioner versus Masimo
`
`Corporation, Patent Own er and just for the record the IPR
`
`numbers are IPR 2020 and the cases are 912, 954, 1015 and
`
`1054. If we could real quick get a roll call. I want to see who's
`
`10
`
`on the line for Petitioner.
`
`11
`
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: On the line for Petitioner is Rudy
`
`12
`
`Telscher of the law firm of Husch Blackwell.
`
`13
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Mr. Telscher, did I say that
`
`14
`
`correctly?
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: It's Telscher but close enough.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Telscher, I apologize. Are you going to
`
`17
`
`be arguing today ?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: I will be arguing, Y our Honor.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Great. Anybody else with your firm
`
`20
`
`today participating?
`
`21
`
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: Well, with me is Nathan Sportel. If
`
`22
`
`there are going to be arguments over the Motions to Exclude he
`
`23
`
`would handle those. I guess there's a possibility he mi ght say
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`something but we're planning on me doing most or all of the
`
`talking.
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Thank you. And Masimo for
`
`Patent Owner, who's representing today?
`
`
`
`MS. SWAROOP: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`
`Sheila Swaroop of Knobbe, Marten s, Olson & Bear for Patent
`
`Owner Masimo.
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Ms. Swaroop, did I say that
`
`correctly?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. SWAROOP: You did, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay. Thank you very much. All right.
`
`12
`
`Anybody else with you today or is it going to be you ar guing all
`
`13
`
`day?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. SWAROOP: I will be presenting today, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Great. And I do apologize.
`
`16
`
`I'm -- I think ragweed right now so my allergies are acting up so
`
`17
`
`I do apologize if my throat's a little scratchy. First I want to let
`
`18
`
`you all know that the hearing is open to the public. We did have
`
`19
`
`a request so I think we may have one or more people here from
`
`20
`
`the public actually watching in or listening to the hearing.
`
`21
`
`Today the parties are going to each be allotted 60 minutes. If at
`
`22
`
`any time during the proceeding you have technical issues let us
`
`23
`
`know. Obviously if you drop off you probably won't be able to
`
`24
`
`let us know but we will hopefully realize that as quickly as
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`possible and will pause the proceeding. When we pause the
`
`proceeding we won't count that against your time , obviously.
`
`Hopefully, our team is really good and they usually get people
`
`back up within three or four minutes so don't panic if we happen
`
`to lose connection. It's not a big deal, it does happen and if fo r
`
`some reason the video just isn't working we also have backup
`
`telephone numbers for call in that you can use. So that will
`
`hopefully not happen , but just to let you know sometimes it does.
`
`
`
`So one thing that we try to do is everyone mut e themselves
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`until they go to talk and then we have the inevitable where we
`
`11
`
`always forget to unmute ourselves when we actually do start
`
`12
`
`talking. But for courtesy the judges and all the staff will try to
`
`13
`
`stay muted until we ask a question and then counsel, please mute
`
`14
`
`yourself if the other counsel is speaking. We have
`
`15
`
`demonstratives. Both sides did a good job of getting us those
`
`16
`
`demonstratives ahead of time and we appreciate that. When you
`
`17
`
`refer to those, please give the slide number that you're referring
`
`18
`
`to in your deck and give us maybe a second or two to pull it up.
`
`19
`
`We're going to be pulling things up on our work stations and we
`
`20
`
`want to follow you as closely as possible so a brief pause helps
`
`21
`
`to do that and this is probably more for us, the judges. We'll try
`
`22
`
`to identify ourselves each time we speak so our court reporter
`
`23
`
`can know who's talking and when.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`So the Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof in this
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`case and the Petitioner will go first to present their case and they
`
`may also reserve some time for rebutta l arguments. So out of the
`
`60 minutes looking at your time, Mr. Te lscher, how much time
`
`would you like to reserve for your rebuttal?
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: Fifteen minutes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. So you have 45 and 15. And
`
`then after Petitioner 's initial presentation the Patent Owner will
`
`argue its opposition and then present issue for which you might
`
`bear the burden of proof. Patent Owner, Ms. Swaroop, how
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`much time would you like to allot for your rebuttal reply time?
`
`11
`
`
`
`MS. SWAROOP: I would l ike to reserve 15 minutes of
`
`12
`
`rebuttal for Patent Owner.
`
`13
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. So that's pretty easy for us to
`
`14
`
`remember. We will try to keep time ourselves. If you can keep
`
`15
`
`your own time as well, you know, we're going to be obviously
`
`16
`
`liberal with th e time just because we don't have an official clock
`
`17
`
`behind us so we are all going to be kind of tracking that. We'll
`
`18
`
`let you know when there's about three to five minutes left in your
`
`19
`
`opening time just so you have an idea.
`
`20
`
`Important for these four IPR pro ceedings, the parties have
`
`21
`
`agreed to a single transcript and a single hearing so that's
`
`22
`
`important. The transcript will be used in all four IPR
`
`23
`
`proceedings. If there's any specific issue that only applies to one
`
`24
`
`IPR, try to let us know the IPR number that you're arguing the
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`specific issue for. It makes things just easier at the end when we
`
`have to go back and look at the transcripts and review your
`
`arguments if you can.
`
`All right. I think that concludes most of the formalities.
`
`After the case is submitt ed and I say “off the record ,” I'd ask the
`
`parties to stay on the line for just a few minutes so our court
`
`reporter, Julie Souza, can ask you any questions about spellings
`
`or any other things to make sure the transcript is as clear as
`
`possible, and with th at are there any questions at this time before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`we begin? All right.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. TELSCHER: None from Petitioner.
`
`MS. SWAROOP: And from Patent Owner.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Thank you. All right. Mr.
`
`14
`
`Telscher, I'll go ahead and let you begin and your time wi ll start
`
`15
`
`whenever you're ready to begin. Thank you.
`
`16
`
`MR. TELSCHER: Thank you, Your Honors and good
`
`17
`
`afternoon. Because the IPRs have so many issues in common
`
`18
`
`most of my arguments will be germane to also when I'm speaking
`
`19
`
`without referencing an IPR it woul d signal that I'm talking about
`
`20
`
`all of them. If there's a particular issue germane to one of the
`
`21
`
`particular IPRs I will mention the number.
`
`22
`
`I'd like to start with the patents themselves. So I have, you
`
`23
`
`know, one part which is kind of an introduction that I think
`
`24
`
`frames the issues. I'd like to start at slide 10 of our deck and
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`then of course we will turn to the actual grounds in the petition
`
`and why we believe each of the claims are obvious. So I'll give
`
`you a moment to turn to slide 10 but that's where I'm starting
`
`with the patents themselves and just by way of nomenclature I
`
`might say '735 patent. Because all of these patents have a
`
`common disclosure I'm referring to all of them for the most part
`
`unless I specify otherwise, and let me know when you're ready.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: I think we're there now. Thank you for
`
`the pause.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. TELSCHER: So the first slide I think is a critical
`
`11
`
`slide. It shows you what the inventor thinks he invented. So if
`
`12
`
`you look to the left hand of the slide, they call it prior ar t and
`
`13
`
`you'll see that there's an S P02 sensor attached to the finger, that
`
`14
`
`was conventional. You'll see that there was a wire with a port
`
`15
`
`plugging into unit 160 around, you know, a receptacle I think it's
`
`16
`
`162 but you see plug 144. So there's been a lot of discussion in
`
`17
`
`this case about whether it would have been obvious to use a
`
`18
`
`sensor ported to an electronic device in a medical context.
`
`19
`
`The '735 patent and all of the patents here admit that ports
`
`20
`
`are prior art. In fact when you read these patents there ar e pages
`
`21
`
`of discussion from Mr. Oslan, their expert, talking about why
`
`22
`
`you wouldn't use ports in a medical device context, noise, cost,
`
`23
`
`things of that nature but right here in figure 1 the '735 patent
`
`24
`
`refers to a porting connection from a sensor to the elec tronic
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`device as the prior art.
`
`When you look to the right hand side of your screen you'll
`
`see what the invention really was and the patent admits that
`
`around this timeframe the idea of transmitting vital signs from
`
`some kind of a remote monitor -- what we see here is a wrist
`
`monitor but it could be something that straps to your belt -- the
`
`idea of transmitting wirelessly from the patient in a monitor
`
`there to the remote monitor 360 was no. The patent doesn't
`
`debate that they came up with the idea of wirel ess transmission
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`for medical sensors and vital signs. What did they say they
`
`11
`
`invented, and it's the adaptor and you'll hear me throughout this
`
`12
`
`proceeding talking about an adaptor and that's what this patent
`
`13
`
`was all about. Go back and look. There were se ven patents that
`
`14
`
`predate the patents we're talking about and for fifteen years, the
`
`15
`
`patents were filed in 2002, for fifteen years the patents were
`
`16
`
`directed to the adaptor interface. The abstract, the spec, all of it
`
`17
`
`was directed to the adaptor interface a nd you'll see that the idea
`
`18
`
`was instead of plugging the remote sensor, the sensor the SP02
`
`19
`
`sensor into the remote monitor you would then -- if you look to
`
`20
`
`the right side of slide 10 -- you would plug it into the wrist
`
`21
`
`monitor. The wrist monitor could disp lay the vitals and then it
`
`22
`
`could wirelessly transmit to the adaptor and if you read this
`
`23
`
`patent I mean most of the figures, by far most of the discussion,
`
`24
`
`has to do with how do you transmit from that wrist monitor to
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`the adaptor and that was the invention and if you're reading what
`
`they were talking about and this probably was a good idea. What
`
`Masimo said is look, we don't want hospitals to have to change
`
`up all their equipment so instead of having the SP02 sensor
`
`plugged directly into that piece of equip ment, the remote
`
`monitor, we're going to use an adaptor and by using that adaptor
`
`now, in this wireless system, we'll work with all the hospital's
`
`existing equipment and again for fifteen years their claims were
`
`directed to an adaptor interface. There wer e no claims directed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to ports for combination of analog and digital sensors. So that's
`
`11
`
`what went on for 15 years and now we've got -- and look, all of
`
`12
`
`us that are on this feed right now are aware that patent owners
`
`13
`
`change their claims, they broaden them, they narrow them,
`
`14
`
`there's nuances to them.
`
`15
`
`What happened in this case is 15 years later the claims
`
`16
`
`went in a completely different direction. They were not directed
`
`17
`
`to this adaptor interface and what happened during those 15
`
`18
`
`years is that our client entere d the scene in around 2013 or 2014.
`
`19
`
`There was a trade secret lawsuit that didn't work out as Masimo
`
`20
`
`wanted and in 2017 when that trade secret lawsuit ended they
`
`21
`
`prepared nine new patents, four of which are in this IPR. We
`
`22
`
`have another IPR proceeding comi ng up in a couple of weeks on
`
`23
`
`other patents. But these four were four of the ones brought in
`
`24
`
`2017 and so that's kind of the context for where we're at.
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, turning to slide 11. Slide 11, and as we all know
`
`when you get to the new patents you can change the abstract, but
`
`in continuation patents they couldn't change anything else. So
`
`the spec's all the same, the summaries all the same, you know,
`
`they can try to change the claims according to patent law but the
`
`abstract is something th ey could change without creating new
`
`matter and so when you look at the abstract it's different from
`
`the abstract of the prior seven patents and what does it talk
`
`about? It talks about wire management. So in 2017 the new
`
`10
`
`direction, they never tried to patent this b efore but this was the
`
`11
`
`new direction, was to have the wrist monitor 400, you've got
`
`12
`
`411, connecting to the SP02 sensor which is 310 and what they
`
`13
`
`said is by running that wire 420 perpendicularly down to the
`
`14
`
`SP02 sensor it prevented tangling, it was wire ma nagement and
`
`15
`
`this was the smarter better way of doing it.
`
`16
`
`Now again, for 15 years they never tried to patent anything
`
`17
`
`like this, but they did and I'm not saying they weren't entitled to
`
`18
`
`do that one way or the other, but flip to page 12. And , by the
`
`19
`
`way, on 11 there's no discussion about some signals are analog
`
`20
`
`and some are digital or ports are the big invention, it was about
`
`21
`
`that wire management concept we just discussed . And when you
`
`22
`
`switch to slide 12 , Goldberg shows the exact wire management
`
`23
`
`concept of running a wire from the front face down to an SPO2
`
`24
`
`sensor that's on the finger and the new concept was blown out of
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`the water. Akai shows the same exact thing, they're clearly prior
`
`art.
`
`Now again, one of the things that I mentioned is these
`
`patents were never about combinations of A and D signals or
`
`ports and I'm not asking the panel to take my word for it. Look
`
`at the summary of the invention. I'm on slide 13, thank you.
`
`Turning the page my colleague reminded me I did not signal a
`
`QT, so I'll give yo u a moment for slide 13. Are you at slide 13?
`
`Thank you. And so for slide 13 , again, they describe this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`problem. And the problem was wireless transmission of these
`
`11
`
`vitals was known , but boy, the hospitals would have to change
`
`12
`
`all of the equipment . So the idea was an adaptor and if you
`
`13
`
`switch to page 14 , it's just more exemplary. I would invite the
`
`14
`
`panel to read the entire summary. I'm not going to go through it.
`
`15
`
`There is nothing in the summary of the invention that talks about
`
`16
`
`even wire management, analog and digital combinations, much
`
`17
`
`less specific sensors that have analog and specific sensors that
`
`18
`
`have digital. There's no discussion of any of that. It's all about
`
`19
`
`this adaptor transfer . And as I said, for 15 years seven patents
`
`20
`
`were all directed to that, that receiver interface . And our expert
`
`21
`
`goes into all of that in his expert report.
`
`22
`
`If you switch to slide 15. All that we're fighting about now
`
`23
`
`are ports, analog and digital signals, single or multi -sensor
`
`24
`
`embodiments, wrist monitor clipped on. When you read the
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`patent, I mean we have got four IPRs and more briefing that we
`
`can count, and if you read the patent the sum total of the
`
`disclosure is minimal on these points. Why? Because that was
`
`not the focus of the invention. But I want to point something
`
`else out when you read this. It's what I call the “this or that”
`
`patent approach. When you start to get into details that don't
`
`matter, well the signals can be analog or digital. It can be ports
`
`or it can be hard wire. It could be wrist monit or or it could be
`
`clipped on. It could be a single sensor or it could be multi -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`sensor. So it's what I call “it could be this or that ” and when I
`
`11
`
`see patent owners doing the “this or that” it's because those are
`
`12
`
`details that don't matter; right? One skil led in the art would
`
`13
`
`know that you can hard wire or you could port it. One skilled in
`
`14
`
`the art would know you could use analog or digital signals. One
`
`15
`
`skilled in the art knows that if you want to measure one vital
`
`16
`
`sign use one sensor and one port. If you want to use multiple
`
`17
`
`vital signs which I think call it (audio interference) in the
`
`18
`
`medical context when you're monitoring certain conditions you
`
`19
`
`might need three to five vital signs being monitored.
`
`20
`
`The experts all talk about it, the prior art talks about it. So
`
`21
`
`the patents, and I'll give you an example. Say our client's device
`
`22
`
`in 2014 was hard wire. They could have delivered the same
`
`23
`
`claims to you and called them hard wire versus ported and they
`
`24
`
`would claim that was their invention because their pat ent talks
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`about it being either ports or hard wire. Just p oll (phonetic) the
`
`options. Make it a list and it is all digital signals and they would
`
`have pointed to the snippet here that says it could be analog,
`
`digital or both and if our client's device wa s all digital they
`
`would have drafted claims to all digital and then we would have
`
`been on this chase to try to find prior art that specifically shows
`
`these what I would consider basic design details and that's what
`
`our expert testified to.
`
`Slide 16. Ther e's been a lot of discussion in these IPRs
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`about an analog SP02 sensor connecting into a monitoring
`
`11
`
`device, a wrist monitoring device by a port. This patent on slide
`
`12
`
`16 says figures 1 and 2 illustrate a conventional post -oximetry
`
`13
`
`system used for the mea surement of blood oxygen and it shows a
`
`14
`
`conventional sensor plugging into a port. The sensor is typically
`
`15
`
`attached to the finger. If you read that first block on the left
`
`16
`
`hand side the sensor has a plug that inserts into a patient cable
`
`17
`
`socket. In this case Mr. Oslan has gone on for pages of
`
`18
`
`Declaration telling us why ports have noise, ports are costly,
`
`19
`
`they're too big but there is nothing in the '735 patent that talks
`
`20
`
`about any of those problems. In fact, the '735 patent says that
`
`21
`
`the use of ports on a medical device was known and if you look
`
`22
`
`to the right hand side of slide 16 from the patent again it says the
`
`23
`
`sensor's conventional and now here we are in an IPR arguing
`
`24
`
`about whether an analog SP02 sensor connecting to a port is
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`somehow a poi nt of novelty when the patent itself describes that
`
`it is conventional activity.
`
`You know, maybe Masimo's response to that would be our
`
`claims are more detailed. When you look at claim 20 it requires
`
`an analog SP02 sensor but it requires maybe a digital
`
`temperature sensor and a digital EKG sensor. I would ask the
`
`Board to read this patent. There is no disclosure of any
`
`embodiment that it talks about an analog, digital or, excuse me,
`
`SP02 analog sensor with a digital temperature sensor with a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`digital EKG sensor. There's no disclosure of that anywhere and
`
`11
`
`I'm not making a 112 argument. I know this panel is not here to
`
`12
`
`consider 112. But the point is all the patent says about analog
`
`13
`
`and digital is that the conventional sensors can be analog, digital
`
`14
`
`or a combination of analog and digital. All of the experts that
`
`15
`
`are before you agree that conventional sensors could be analog or
`
`16
`
`digital or both. We all know that one skilled in the art when
`
`17
`
`they're monitoring patients they're going to choose do I want an
`
`18
`
`analog sensor, do I want a digital sensor and again I don't want
`
`19
`
`you to take my word for it. Look at their expert report at
`
`20
`
`paragraphs 110 to 115. He goes into a long description of how
`
`21
`
`one skilled in the art would know about analog sensors, digital
`
`22
`
`sensors, the benefits to one or the other and of course that's
`
`23
`
`right. I mean let's think about it for a second. We have analog
`
`24
`
`signals and digital signals. If we thought analog signals were the
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`end-all-be-all there would be no digital signals and i f we thought
`
`digital signals were by far the best there would be no analog
`
`signals. But we live in a world where there are analog and
`
`digital signals . You have two choices. One skilled in the art
`
`would know about these choices.
`
`When we turn to the conce pt of multi-parameter monitoring
`
`and I'm on slide 18 now. I'll give you a moment.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Hi, this is Judge Kinder. You can just
`
`pause for a brief second or two, you don't have to give us too
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`much time. We can catch up pretty quick.
`
`11
`
`MR. TELSCHER: Okay. Thank you. So I want you to
`
`12
`
`compare the disclosure of multi -parameter monitoring in the '735
`
`13
`
`patent with that of Goldberg. There's the same limited
`
`14
`
`disclosure in both. It's uncanny. When you look at the '735
`
`15
`
`patent figure 4A on the left, fig ure 4A shows an SP02 sensor
`
`16
`
`ported into a wrist monitor and you can see the wrist monitor
`
`17
`
`411. Might be (indiscernible) 450, 410 excuse me. So it' s
`
`18
`
`ported in. There is no figure in the '735 patent that talks about
`
`19
`
`how you would make three ports on the device shown in figure
`
`20
`
`4A. Goldberg is the same. Goldberg says exactly what the '735
`
`21
`
`patent says, that we can work -- and they describe seven
`
`22
`
`different vital sign sensors in Goldberg and they say at the top of
`
`23
`
`column 5, lines 3 to 8, "Our device will wor k with one, all or
`
`24
`
`some combination of that."
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Goldberg has the same general description as the '735
`
`patent does and why is that? It's because one skilled in the art
`
`would know how to build a device that has a display that fits on
`
`your wrist that has at le ast three -- that's what the claims require
`
`at least three ports. But we've got page after page after page of
`
`Mr. Oslan telling this panel why one skilled in the art would not
`
`think to use ports on a wrist monitor device because it would be
`
`too costly. There would be noise. There would be size
`
`problems. The only problem with Mr. Oslan's arguments is he
`
`10
`
`ignores the '735 patent. It doesn't have any disclosure at all,
`
`11
`
`none about how you would build something with three ports.
`
`12
`
`The only thing it shows is w hat's in figure 4A.
`
`13
`
`So again, I'm not here to argue Section 112 to this panel.
`
`14
`
`That's for District Court , but I would submit to the panel that the
`
`15
`
`reason why '735 and Goldberg don't get into that level of detail
`
`16
`
`is because by 2002 one skilled in the art k new that they could
`
`17
`
`build a wrist monitor that would wirelessly transmit vitals to a
`
`18
`
`remote computer and you could put at least three sensors ported
`
`19
`
`to it and probably more. But they knew it, but let's say that it
`
`20
`
`was going to be the problem that Mr. Osla n says. Well, where
`
`21
`
`does the '735 patent explain the size, noise and cost issues with
`
`22
`
`this three port wrist monitor? And by the way when you look at
`
`23
`
`the left hand side of figure 4A on slide 18, I mean you can look
`
`24
`
`at that. I mean it's hard to image that you wouldn't have to make
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`that bigger if you were going to put three ports on it. One
`
`skilled in the art is going to understand if you want to put three
`
`ports that it's going to get bigger and you're still going to put it
`
`to the wrist just as the '735 pa tent says. It doesn't show a three
`
`port embodiment, it just says in passing you can monitor more
`
`than one vital sign. I don't even think that it says three. I think
`
`that the claims talking about three is not something the patent is
`
`even talking about, i t's some magic number.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: This is Judge Kinder. Really quick
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`question.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. TELSCHER: Yes, sir.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: So I, and I'm thinking of the column in
`
`13
`
`Goldberg that talked about using multiple types of sensors and
`
`14
`
`one was I think pulse ox an d then it said it could at least be used
`
`15
`
`with others. Does it contemplate using two at once? At least two
`
`16
`
`different types of sensors at once?
`
`17
`
`MR. TELCHER: Yes, it does. So column 5, lines 3 to 8,
`
`18
`
`very short passage. It says, and by the way this is colu mn 5. If
`
`19
`
`you read the previous three to four paragraphs of Goldberg
`
`20
`
`starting on column 4 it describes EKG sensors, SP02 sensors,
`
`21
`
`respiratory sensors, all the common vital signs that doctors need
`
`22
`
`to monitor and then when it gets to the top of column 5 it s ays,
`
`23
`
`24
`
`"Our invention will work with one, all or any combination
`
`of them."
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And that's exactly what really the '735 patent says. The
`
`'735 patent gives no more detail than that. Why is it? Because
`
`doctors think, let's be clear Masimo and Sotera are not tell ing
`
`doctors what vital signs to monitor. You're a doctor and my
`
`patient's got diabetes, I know the signals I've got to monitor. If
`
`they've got a heart condition I know the signals they've got to
`
`monitor. All that Goldberg, Masimo and even our client Sot era
`
`are doing is delivering a device that allows them to plug in
`
`sensors that allow them to monitor the vital signs they need. But
`
`10
`
`Goldberg is explicit that it could be all of them and he lists at
`
`11
`
`least seven and says others, and again this is what doctor s need.
`
`12
`
`I mean the invention of the '735 patent wasn't directed to new
`
`13
`
`sensors, it wasn't directed to combinations of sensors. There's
`
`14
`
`no disclosure of any of that. What was the '735 patent directed
`
`15
`
`to? An adaptor that allowed you to wirelessly connect to an
`
`16
`
`adaptor on a remote station so that the existing hospital
`
`17
`
`equipment could be used. Just one second. I'm getting a cite
`
`18
`
`here. And also from the '904 patent, Goldberg and it's column 4
`
`19
`
`there's another citation to what he's given. In column 4, line 50,
`
`20
`
`"The sensors 104 are positioned as to sense physiological
`
`21
`
`characteristics of the monitored person. In the preferred
`
`22
`
`embodiment the sensor 104 an be associated with one or more of
`
`23
`
`the monitored person's blood pressure, pulse, oxygen hemoglob in
`
`24
`
`saturation, glucose, body temperature, respiration and
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108 B2)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735 B2)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,795,300 B2)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623 B2)
`
`electrolyte."
`
`So clearly Goldberg in at least two places now
`
`contemplates monitoring multiple signals and again, Your Honor,
`
`any system that would be usable in a hospital would have to
`
`monitor more than one s ystem in a lot of applications. Does that
`
`answer the question?
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Yes, thank you. I know you'll probably
`
`get into more of the size and configuration argument but you
`
`would at least have to admit if it's going to be a wearable device
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`there probably is a limit though in the number of ports it could
`
`11
`
`have in the size; right?
`
`12
`
`MR. TELCHER: Of course there would be, Your Honor.
`
`13
`
`You know, and one skilled in the art is going to know what are
`
`14
`
`the size of ports, what are the electronics that it takes t o
`
`15
`
`interface and they're going to be able to figure that out. But I
`
`16
`
`want to point something out to you. When you look at figures 13
`
`17
`
`and 14 of the '735 patent which is their multi -port embodiment,
`
`18
`
`Masimo says sensor one, sensor two and then it's got sensor to
`
`19
`
`the nth degree. So Masimo in the '735 patent doesn't try to place
`
`20
`
`a limit on it. They says there could be the nth degree of sensors
`
`21
`
`in figures 13 to 14 and again the reason for it, it goes right to
`
`22
`
`your question. One skilled in the art is going to k now that if you
`
`23
`
`get to a certain number of ports that it's going to be too