`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: November 29, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of all
`claims 1–10 and 12–18 of U.S. Patent No. RE47,218 E (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’218 patent”). Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner”) opposes the
`Petition. We instituted the petitioned review (Paper 12, “Institution
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 23, “PO Resp.”)
`to the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”) to the
`Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 27,
`“Sur-reply”) to the Reply. An oral hearing was held, for which the transcript
`was entered into the record (Paper 34, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) and § 318(a). This
`Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–10 and 12–18 of the ’218 patent.
`We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 1–10 and 12–18 are unpatentable.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Proceedings
`A.
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. are the
`real parties-in-interest for Petitioner, and Masimo Corporation is the real
`party-in-interest for Patent Owner. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1. Masimo Corp. v.
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., Civil Action
`No. 3:19-cv-01100-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.) is a related judicial proceeding.
`Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`The ’218 Patent
`B.
`The ’218 patent concerns a system for monitoring a patient’s blood
`oxygen saturation (SpO2), and generating an alarm if the saturation falls too
`low. See Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:34–39, 2:54–58. The system includes an
`optical sensor attached to the patient’s finger, to emit light into the fingertip
`tissue and detect light that is attenuated by blood flow within the fingertip, to
`provide a numerical readout of oxygen saturation. See id. at 1:39–55.
`Figure 1 of the ’218 patent is reproduced here:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a prior art oxygen saturation measurement system having
`two “lower-limit, fixed-threshold alarm” schemes, at “delay” alarm
`threshold DL and at “no delay” alarm threshold NDL. Id. at 2:54–59
`(emphasis added). If the patient’s measured oxygen saturation 110 falls and
`stays below delay threshold DL for a time period greater than time delay TD,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`as shown in Figure 1 from time t1 to time t2, then delayed alarm 140 is
`triggered. Id. at 2:59–3:2. If the patient’s measured oxygen saturation 110
`falls below no delay threshold NDL, as shown in Figure 1 at time t4, then
`alarm 150 is triggered immediately, without delay. Id. at 2:61–62, 3:2–4.
`According to the ’218 patent, the fixed nature of delay alarm
`threshold DL undesirably leads to “a baseline drift problem,” which can
`generate a “nuisance” or “false” alarm. Id. at 2:54–56, 3:24–46 (Fig. 3).
`The ’218 patent therefore proposes “an adaptive alarm system,” which
`adjusts the delay alarm threshold downwards when an oxygen saturation
`baseline is established at lower values. Id. at 3:59–62. In this way, the
`inventive “alarm threshold . . . adapts to baseline drift in [oxygen saturation]
`and reduce[s] false alarms without a corresponding increase in missed true
`alarms.” Id. at 4:4–8.
`This is illustrated in Figure 6 of the ’218 patent, reproduced here:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`Figure 6 graphs a measured physiological parameter such as oxygen
`saturation (the vertical axis) over time (the horizontal axis), as generated by
`an alarm system having a lower limit adaptive alarm threshold AT. Id.
`at 5:34–36, 7:40–47. An adaptive alarm threshold AT is applied whenever
`the measured oxygen saturation falls within range 650, extending from lower
`limit L2 up to maximum value Max, such as illustrated at segments 620, 630,
`and 640. Id. at 6:15–30, 7:9–67, Fig. 5B (horizontal axis values extend from
`L2 to Max). The adaptive thresholds AT are constrained to lie within
`range 660, extending from lower limit L2 up to limit L1. Id. at 6:15–30,
`7:9–67, Fig. 5A (adaptive threshold AT line 442 is constrained between
`limits L2 and L1 along vertical axis).
`In a preferred embodiment, lower limit L2 corresponds to the value of
`the no delay alarm threshold NDL of the prior art system shown in Figure 1,
`and limit L1 corresponds to the value of the delay alarm threshold DL of the
`prior art system. Id. at 5:66–6:4, 6:20–34. The fixed alarm threshold that
`the prior art implements at limit L1 is replaced by adaptive alarm
`thresholds AT. Id. at 6:22–34. Each threshold AT, during a given time
`period such as t1, t2, or t3, may advantageously be implemented as a time
`delay alarm, as the prior art system does with its fixed delay alarm
`threshold DL. Id. at 6:38–43.
`The system determines a baseline B of the patient’s oxygen saturation
`during different time periods t1, t2, and t3. Id. at 6:11–15, 6:44–7:8. For
`each different baseline B, the system applies a different adaptive alarm
`threshold AT. Id. at 6:15–19. Specifically, the system calculates delta Δ as
`a function of: the varying baseline B; pre-set limits L1 and L2; and maximum
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`value Max. Id. at 6:15–34 (Fig. 4A), 7:9–39 (Fig. 5B). The adaptive alarm
`threshold is set AT = B – Δ. Id. at 7:27–39 (Fig. 5A), 7:53–8:6 (Fig. 6).
`
`The Claims of the ’218 Patent
`C.
`The ’218 patent lists seventeen claims, numbered 1–10 and 12–18.
`Ex. 1001, 1:4–9, 13:62–16:62. As a reissue patent, the claim listing in the
`’218 patent uses brackets to identify verbiage removed during the reissue
`process, and uses italics to identify verbiage added during the reissue
`process. Id. Due to the extent and nature of these reissue amendments, it is
`difficult to ascertain the scope of the claimed invention by simply reviewing
`the claim listing in the ’218 patent, particularly in the three independent
`claims 1, 8, and 12. Id. at 13:62–16:62.
`Accordingly, we reproduce claim 1 here, removing the bracketed
`verbiage and not italicizing the added verbiage, to ease readability. We also
`include Petitioner’s labeling scheme 1(a)–1(i). See Pet. vii–viii.
`[1(a)] 1. A system for reducing electronic alarms in a
`medical patient monitoring system, the system comprising:
`[1(b)] an optical sensor configured to transmit optical
`radiation into a tissue site of a patient and detect attenuated
`optical radiation indicative of at least one physiological
`parameter of a patient; and
`[1(c)] one or more hardware processors in electronic
`communication with the optical sensor, the one or more
`hardware processors configured to:
`[1(d)] determine oxygen saturation values of the
`patient over a first period of time;
`[1(e)] when at least one oxygen saturation value
`obtained over the first period of time exceeds a first
`alarm threshold, determine whether a first alarm should
`be triggered;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`[1(f)] access a second alarm threshold to be
`applied during a second period of time subsequent to the
`first period of time, the second alarm threshold replacing
`the first alarm threshold,
`[1(g)] wherein the second alarm threshold has a
`value less than the at least one oxygen saturation value
`and greater than a lower limit and at an offset from the at
`least one oxygen saturation value, wherein the offset is
`diminished as a difference between the at least first
`oxygen saturation value and the lower limit diminishes;
`[1(h)] determine oxygen saturation values of the
`patient over the second period of time; and
`[1(i)] trigger a second alarm based on at least one
`value of the oxygen saturation values obtained over the
`second period of time exceeding the second alarm
`threshold.
`Ex. 1001, 13:62–14:40. Claim 12 recites a method comprising steps
`analogous to limitations 1(d)–1(i). See id. at 15:52–16:32.
`Claim 8 is a system claim somewhat akin to claim 1. See id. at
`15:1–39. Claim 8 differs from claim 1 most significantly in reciting that the
`processor is configured to “apply a time delay based on the second alarm
`threshold, wherein the time delay approaches zero as the at least one oxygen
`saturation value obtained over the first period of time approaches the lower
`limit.” Id. at 15:19–23.
`
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`D.
`Petitioner asserts claims 1–10 and 12–18 are unpatentable, based on
`the following two grounds. See Pet. 5–6.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
`1–4, 7, 12–15
`103
`Bock1, Kiani2
`
`5, 6, 8–10, 16–18
`
`103
`
`Bock, Woehrle3, Kiani
`
`Testimonial Evidence
`E.
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of George E. Yanulis, D. Eng.
`(Exhibit 1003) and Bryan Bergeron, M.D. (Exhibit 1040). Patent Owner
`relies on the testimony of Jack Goldberg (Exhibit 2011).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Statement of Law
`A.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by
`a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`
`1 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 7,079,035 B2, issued July 18, 2006.
`2 Ex. 1006, U.S. Patent No. 6,597,933 B2, issued July 22, 2003.
`3 Ex. 1007, WO 2009/093159 A1, published July 30, 2009.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, if made available in the record (which has not occurred
`here). See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Related Challenge to Dr. Yanulis’s Testimony
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`1.
`Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining
`to the ’218 patent (“POSITA”) “would have been a person with at least a
`B.S. degree in electrical or biomedical engineering or a related field with at
`least two years’ experience designing patient monitoring systems.”
`Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–40). Also: “Less work experience may be
`compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and
`vice versa.” Id.
`Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art,” which Patent Owner describes as
`“[r]elatively [l]ow.” PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 18–19.
`We conclude the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill is
`consistent with the ’218 patent and the asserted prior art. We, therefore,
`apply it here.
`
`Patent Owner’s Related Challenge to Dr. Yanulis’s Testimony
`2.
`Patent Owner urges us to reject Dr. Yanulis’s testimony on behalf of
`Petitioner concerning what a POSITA would have understood the prior art to
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`disclose, and what a POSITA would have been motivated to do. See PO
`Resp. 12–14. Patent Owner asserts Dr. Yanulis “admitted during his
`deposition that he applied the wrong legal standard” because he “based his
`opinions on how he personally interpreted the references, rather than what a
`[POSITA] would have understood.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 2014,
`55:11–18, 57:2–6, 136:8–9). Patent Owner explains: “This is problematic
`because Petitioner asserts that Dr. Yanulis is an expert whose understanding
`exceeds that of the ordinarily skilled artisan,” so his testimony as to
`obviousness is based on “extraordinary skill and experience in the art” and
`is therefore “irrelevant.” Id. at 13–14 (emphasis by Patent Owner) (citing
`35 U.S.C. § 103; KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“The question is . . . whether the
`combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art.”)).
`Petitioner replies that Dr. Yanulis applied the correct legal standard,
`because “he viewed the prior art and the [’218] patent from the perspective
`of a [POSITA].” Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Petitioner asserts it
`is not unusual for an expert witness such as Dr. Yanulis to have “credentials
`additional to those of a [POSITA].” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–12).
`Petitioner does not discuss Dr. Yanulis’s deposition testimony.
`Dr. Yanulis’s declaration states he has “knowledge relevant to what a
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`understand and do,” with the time of invention being “the priority date of the
`[’218] patent” in 2010. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. His declaration also states that in
`2010 Dr. Yanulis “had 27 years of experience in this field and was a person
`having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Further, Dr. Yanulis concludes he is
`“able to read and understand the claims and specifications of the prior art
`and the [’218] patent in the light that a [POSITA] would read and understand
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`them,” and sets forth the POSITA level we have adopted above. Id.
`¶¶ 33–34. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Dr. Yanulis’s declaration
`indicates he applied the correct legal standard for obviousness, by testifying
`as to what a POSITA would have known and done in 2010, rather than what
`Dr. Yanulis personally would have known and done in 2010.
`In the deposition testimony cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Yanulis was
`asked “I think you mentioned in your declaration or elsewhere you have had
`several decades of experience in this field. Is that right?” Ex. 2014,
`55:11–16 (emphasis added). He responded: “I think that would be safe to
`say. Probably more close to 40 years, counselor.” Id. at 55:17–18.
`This testimony merely reflects Dr. Yanulis’s personal experience as
`relevant to the ’218 patent, which qualifies him to testify concerning what a
`POSITA would have known and done in 2010. Dr. Yanulis did not state that
`his patentability opinions are premised on what he personally would have
`known and done in 2010, rather than what a POSITA would have known
`and done in 2010. See id. at 55:11–18.
`Dr. Yanulis was later asked: “Would a person of ordinary skill in the
`art have several decades of experience as of the priority date of
`[the ’218] patent?” Id. at 56:12–14 (emphasis added). He answered: “Not
`necessarily,” and further alluded to the POSITA description in his
`declaration, which he recalled as being “at least a BS in biomedical
`engineering or electrical engineering, and preferably a Master’s in either; as
`well as at least two years of design experience and working with these
`devices.” Id. at 56:15–57:1. He then added: “I wouldn’t expect a normal
`[POSITA] to have that many years to completely understand what’s
`disclosed, not only in the Bock patent, but in the prior art[.]” Id. at 57:2–6.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of this testimony as
`establishing that Dr. Yanulis’s patentability opinions are premised on what
`he personally would have known and done in 2010. Instead, Dr. Yanulis
`acknowledged that he personally had decades of experience in the pertinent
`field, and then testified that such extensive experience (which is not required
`for a POSITA) is not needed to understand Bock and the other prior art at
`issue in this proceeding. See id. at 56:12–57:6. Thus, as with Dr. Yanulis’s
`declaration, his deposition testimony was that he applied the correct legal
`standard for obviousness, by testifying as to what a POSITA would have
`known and done in 2010. This is confirmed by his later deposition
`testimony: “I was referring to what I would expect a [POSITA] should know
`reviewing this challenge[d] patent and the prior art,” and “I was just
`reviewing based on my definition of a [POSITA]” even though “I think it’s
`very fair to say I have more expertise than the typical [POSITA].” Id.
`at 136:2–9 (emphases added).
`Thus, after reviewing the entirety of Dr. Yanulis’s testimony cited by
`the parties in this proceeding, we determine he applied the correct legal
`standard for obviousness, by opining as to what a POSITA would have
`known and done in 2010.
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`We interpret the ’218 patent claims “using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This “includ[es]
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`We construe two aspects of claim 1, and then briefly address similar
`limitations in claims 8 and 12.
`
`Claim 1:
`1.
`“at least one oxygen saturation value,”
`“the at least one oxygen saturation value,” and
`“the at least first oxygen saturation value”
`Claim 1 recites, in limitation 1(e), “at least one oxygen saturation
`value obtained over the first period of time,” wherein the value “exceeds a
`first alarm threshold.” Ex. 1001, 14:6–8 (italicized emphasis added).
`Limitation 1(g) adds “the second alarm threshold has a value less than the at
`least one oxygen saturation value and greater than a lower limit and at an
`offset from the at least one oxygen saturation value, wherein the offset is
`diminished as a difference between the at least first oxygen saturation value
`and the lower limit diminishes.” Id. at 14:16–30 (italicized and underlined
`emphases added).
`In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed these
`limitations sua sponte. See Inst. Dec. 18–23. We also “encourage[d] both
`parties to state in their post-institution briefs whether they agree with [our]
`preliminary claim construction, and to discuss the reason(s) and support for
`any disagreement.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner accepted this invitation. See
`PO Resp. 29–30. Petitioner declined the invitation, until we sought
`clarification during the oral hearing. See Pet. Reply 10; Tr. 11:13–14:18.
`We now revisit our preliminary construction of these limitations, based on a
`full record.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`
`First, focusing on limitation 1(g), we preliminarily concluded “the two
`recitations of ‘the at least one oxygen saturation value,’ and the sole
`recitation of ‘the at least first oxygen saturation value,’ all refer to the same
`value as each other.” Inst. Dec. 21. Patent Owner agrees with this
`preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 30. Petitioner has not taken a
`position as to this preliminary construction. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 10. We,
`therefore, discern no reason to deviate from this preliminary construction,
`and we continue to maintain it here. See Inst. Dec. 21 (lines 4–18).
`Second, considering the inter-relationship between limitations 1(e)
`and 1(g), we preliminarily concluded that “the ‘one’ value in limitation 1(e)
`[refers] to patient data generated by a sensor (such as parameter
`segments 620, 630, and 640 in Figure 6 of the ’218 patent),” whereas “the
`‘one’ or ‘first’ value in limitation 1(g) [refers] to a value derived from the
`patient data (such as baselines B in Figure 6).” Inst. Dec. 23 (emphases
`added); see also id. at 19–23 (analysis in support of preliminary
`construction). Patent Owner disagrees, and contends the oxygen saturation
`values recited in limitation 1(g) each “refer back to” the “same” oxygen
`saturation value in limitation 1(e). PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). This
`value is patient data generated by a sensor, “not . . . a value derived from the
`measured parameter values.” Id.
`During the oral hearing, Petitioner’s counsel agreed with Patent
`Owner’s construction of the inter-relationship between limitations 1(e)
`and 1(g). See Tr. 8:15–9:5, 11:13–14:18. Petitioner’s counsel stated:
`“I believe that our consistent position is that the value that’s being measured
`from the patient at any given moment, that that is the oxygen saturation
`value that we’re looking at” in both limitations. Id. at 12:23–13:1
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`(emphases added). Thus, Petitioner’s position is that all of the oxygen
`saturation values recited in limitations 1(e) and 1(g) refer to “measured
`patient value[s],” not to other values derived from measured patient values.
`Id. at 13:6–14:18. Patent Owner’s counsel confirmed Petitioner’s
`description of claim 1 during the oral hearing is the same as Patent Owner’s
`construction of claim 1. See id. at 31:20–32:17 (stating Patent Owner
`“argue[s] . . . that all of the references to the value or the first value is
`referring to the same thing, and so to the extent that that’s now what
`[Petitioner] is arguing, then I guess we would agree with that”).
`Upon review of the foregoing, and based on the agreement of the
`parties in this regard, we construe all of the oxygen saturation values recited
`in limitations 1(e) and 1(g) to refer to the same value. That is, they each
`refer to patient data generated by a sensor, such as parameter segments 620,
`630, and 640 in Figure 6 of the ’218 patent. The at least one value recited in
`limitation 1(e) is obtained over a first period of time such as segment 620
`over time t1. The at least one value recited in limitation 1(g) is obtained over
`a second period of time, following the first period of time, such as
`segment 630 over time t2. We do not construe the oxygen saturation values
`recited in limitation 1(g) to refer to a value derived from the patient data,
`such as baselines B.
`
`Claim 1:
`2.
`“one or more hardware processors configured to . . . trigger a second alarm
`based on [a measured oxygen saturation value] exceeding the second alarm
`threshold”
`Limitation 1(i) recites a processor “configured to . . . trigger a second
`alarm based on at least one value of the oxygen saturation values obtained
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`over the second period of time exceeding the second alarm threshold.”
`Ex. 1001, 14:1–3, 14:34–40 (emphases added).
`
`a)
`
`The Institution Decision’s Preliminary Construction of Limitation 1(i)
`In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed limitation 1(i)
`sua sponte. See Inst. Dec. 18, 23–24. “[W]e conclude[d] that an oxygen
`saturation value exceeding the second alarm threshold must be one condition
`that is satisfied for the alarm to be ‘triggered . . . based on’ this condition in
`limitation 1(i).” Id. at 24. We further concluded “claim 1 is open to
`requiring additional conditions to be satisfied for the alarm to be triggered,”
`with the ’218 patent disclosing a time delay condition as one example. Id.
`at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:54–3:1 (Fig. 1), 6:35–41 (Fig. 4A), 7:40–8:6
`(Fig. 6), 14:58–62 (claim 5)).
`This construction of limitation 1(i) was a significant factor in our
`determination, at the institution stage, that Petitioner had sufficiently
`established Bock discloses limitation 1(i) to justify institution of review,
`over objections made in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See id.
`at 39–41.
`
`b)
`
`Patent Owner’s Post-Institution Construction of Limitation 1(i)
`Patent Owner argues the Institution Decision construed limitation 1(i)
`too broadly, and pursuant to a correct and narrower claim construction, Bock
`does not disclose limitation 1(i). See PO Resp. 2–3, 15–28.
`Patent Owner asserts limitation 1(i) “requires that exceeding the
`oxygen saturation value identified as the second alarm threshold triggers the
`alarm (optionally in combination with other non-oxygen saturation value
`conditions).” Id. at 15; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 47–48. A time delay is one example of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`the other non-oxygen saturation value conditions permitted by this
`construction. See PO Resp. 16, 26; Sur-reply 2; Ex. 2011 ¶ 48. The critical
`difference between Patent Owner’s construction and the Institution
`Decision’s preliminary construction is that, per Patent Owner, the other
`conditions cannot be further oxygen saturation threshold values. See PO
`Resp. 15, 18 (arguing limitation 1(i) “should not be construed to encompass
`a system that triggers an alarm only if the patient’s oxygen saturation
`exceeds a value that is more extreme than the purported ‘second alarm
`threshold’” (emphasis added)); Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 47–53. Patent Owner’s
`construction would differentiate claim 1 from Bock, because as discussed in
`Section III.D.1 below, Bocks triggers an alarm only if the patient’s oxygen
`saturation firstly exceeds tracking threshold 314—which Petitioner equates
`to the second alarm threshold of limitation 1(i)—and then secondly exceeds
`alarm limit 316. See PO Resp. 16–17, 20–21; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 29–30, 36–37.
`Concerning the claim language, Patent Owner argues the Institution
`Decision “construed the phrase ‘triggered . . . based on . . . exceeding’ but
`did not construe the phrase ‘second alarm threshold.’” PO Resp. 16, 18.
`Patent Owner construes “second alarm threshold” to mean “the most
`extreme (lowest) oxygen saturation value that must be exceeded to trigger
`the second alarm.” Id. at 22; Sur-reply 3–4; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 47–53. Patent
`Owner’s view of the claim language is that “[i]f a purported condition
`requires the oxygen saturation value exceed a value more extreme than the
`alleged ‘second alarm threshold,’ it would not be adding a condition—it
`would be eliminating and replacing it,” and further “[i]f exceeding an
`oxygen saturation value cannot trigger an alarm, then that oxygen saturation
`value cannot be the claimed ‘second alarm threshold.’” PO Resp. 17 (citing
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 47–48, 54–58, 63); id. at 18–19, 22–23; Sur-reply 2–3, 5 (citing
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10
`(Fed. Cir. 2017), as indicating “it is ‘highly disfavored’ to construe claim
`terms in a way that a phrase or limitation is rendered meaningless”). Patent
`Owner cites dictionary definitions that “define ‘threshold’ using definite
`articles” in support. PO Resp. 21 (citing Exs. 2012 and 2013); Ex. 2011
`¶ 52.
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 to add that the processor “wait[s] for a
`time delay prior to the triggering of the second alarm.” Ex. 1001, 14:58–62.
`Patent Owner contends claim 5 does not justify the Institution Decision’s
`preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 26–28; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 54–64. Patent
`Owner argues “[a] time-delay condition is distinct from an additional
`oxygen saturation value-measurement condition,” so the addition of a time
`delay is consistent with Patent Owner’s claim construction. PO Resp.
`26–27; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 61–62. Patent Owner asserts the Institution Decision’s
`preliminary construction would improperly “subsume or obviate the oxygen
`saturation value-measurement condition” in claim 1, rendering it
`“meaningless,” based on the unrelated time delay condition in claim 5. PO
`Resp. 26–27; Sur-reply 5–6; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 61–62. Patent Owner provides a
`Venn diagram to illustrate this contention. PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2011 ¶ 63.
`Turning to the ’218 patent specification, Patent Owner asserts “each
`description of ‘alarm threshold’ . . . refers to the most extreme value that
`must be exceeded to trigger the alarm.” PO Resp. 19; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 49–51,
`59–61. Patent Owner cites several specification descriptions of alarm
`thresholds, including the adaptive alarm threshold AT, as supporting this
`assertion. PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 1 and 6, 2:58–62,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`3:10–23, 3:40–42, 4:43–47, 5:5–7, 6:35–38, 7:53–8:6, 11:18–25). Patent
`Owner also asserts the ’218 patent’s usage of the claim phrase “based on”
`and the similar phrase “based upon” is consistent with and confirms Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction of limitation 1(i). Id. at 23–24 (citing
`Ex. 1001, code (57), 5:5–7); Sur-reply 6; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 59–60. Patent Owner
`cites Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., 905 F.3d 1341,
`1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as “rejecting a proposed construction that would
`improperly ‘expand the scope of the claims far beyond anything described in
`the specification.’” PO Resp. 26.
`Patent Owner additionally contends Petitioner’s witness Dr. Yanulis
`agrees with Patent Owner’s claim construction. See id. at 21–22 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27); id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 2014, 192:3–9); Sur-reply 4–5.
`
`Petitioner’s Post-Institution Construction of Limitation 1(i)
`c)
`Petitioner agrees with the Institution Decision’s preliminary
`construction of limitation 1(i). See Pet. Reply 2–10. Thus, Petitioner
`contends this limitation should be construed to mean “exceeding the second
`alarm threshold is at least one condition required to trigger an alarm.” Id.
`at 3.
`
`Considering the claim language, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s
`construction “is improperly restrictive.” Id. at 3, 8. According to Petitioner,
`“construing claim language to exclude elements is disfavored in the absence
`of support ‘in the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or
`independent lexicography in the written description that would justify
`adding that negative limitation.’” Id. at 3 n.1 (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v.
`Rayteck Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Petitioner argues the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218 E
`
`claim phrase “based on” imparts a breadth to claim 1 that belies Patent
`Owner’s position. Id. at 3–4 (“Had the patentee intended the alarm to be
`triggered by a narrower set of conditions, it could have so stated[.]”);
`Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 51–53. Petitioner cites a dictionary definition of the term “base
`on” as meaning “to use particular ideas or facts” (plural) to make a decision,
`as “refut[ing] Patent Owner’s position that ‘based on’ means that other
`oxygen saturation conditions cannot be included.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing
`Ex. 1043); Ex. 1040 ¶ 52. Petitioner cites two District Court decisions that,
`Petitioner asserts, construed the claim phrase “based on” to be “an
`open-ended term.” Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. 2:17-cv-662-JTG-RSP, 2018 WL 6018625, at *16
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2018); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08540,
`2012 WL 12537293, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2012)).
`Considering the ’218 patent specification, Petitioner asserts the
`patent’s usage of the term “based on” supports Petitioner’s construction.
`Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57)); Ex. 1040 ¶ 51. Also according to
`Petitioner, the ’218 patent’s disclosure that “the alarm is triggered after
`falling below the adaptive threshold and remaining below the adaptive
`threshold after a time delay” further supports Petitioner’s construction. Pet.
`Reply 4–6 (emphasis by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1001, 6:35–44, 9:12–20,
`11:18–32, claims 5–6); Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 54–57.
`Petitioner further asserts “the result of [Patent Owner’s] proposed
`construction is nonsensical,” because it would defeat the ’218 patent’s
`purpose of addressing non-actionable alarms. Pet. Reply 8. Petitioner
`reasons that, when a time delay is implemented as expressly contemplated in
`the ’218 patent, and after the time delay period begins at the moment the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01078
`Patent RE47,218