IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Poeze et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,292,628 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-00008IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 21, 2019
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/261,326
`Filing Date:
`January 29, 2019
`Title:
`MULTI-STREAM DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
`NONINVASIVE MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD
`CONSTITUENTS
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. THOMAS W. KENNY
`
`Declaration
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021 By: ________________________________
`
`Thomas W. Kenny, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE 1047
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01521
`
`1
`
`
`
`Poeze et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,292,628 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-00008IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 21, 2019
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/261,326
`Filing Date:
`January 29, 2019
`Title:
`MULTI-STREAM DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
`NONINVASIVE MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD
`CONSTITUENTS
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. THOMAS W. KENNY
`
`Declaration
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021 By: ________________________________
`
`Thomas W. Kenny, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE 1047
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01521
`
`1
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`
`I. GROUNDS 1A-1D RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..... 3
`A. Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of Aizawa ....................... 3
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to add a second LED to Aizawa ..... 31
`C. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Aizawa in view of Ohsaki
`to include a convex protrusion ............................................................................. 33
`II. GROUNDS 2A-2B RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ... 36
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Mendelson-1988 in view
`of Inokawa to add a lens ....................................................................................... 36
`B. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa includes the claimed cover ................. 37
`C. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa renders obvious a “circular housing” . 40
`D. Nishikawa is a supporting reference .............................................................. 40
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This Declaration further expands the conclusions that I have formed based
`
`on my analysis, in addition to those provided in my first declaration (APPLE-1003,
`
`which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety; “Original Declaration”).
`
`Consistent with my findings provided in my Original Declaration, and based upon
`
`my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art publications listed
`
`above, a POSITA would have found that claims 1-30 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’628 patent are rendered obvious by at least the combination of as set forth in
`
`my Original Declaration.
`
`
`
`GROUNDS 1A-1D RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`
`I.
`CLAIMS
`2.
`As I further clarify below in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, claims
`
`1-15, 17, 20-26, and 28 are rendered obvious by the combination of Aizawa and
`
`Inokawa (Ground 1A). For additional reasons as explained below, those same
`
`claims are further rendered obvious by the combination of Aizawa, Inokawa, and
`
`Ohsaki (Ground 1B).
`
`A.
`
`Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of
`Aizawa
`As I previously explained in the Original Declaration, Inokawa very
`
`3.
`
`generally describes a “lens [that] makes it possible to increase the light-gathering
`
`ability” of a reflectance type pulse sensor, APPLE-1008, [0015], [0058], FIG. 2,
`
`3
`
`
`
`and, based on this disclosure, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate
`
`“an Inokawa-like lens into the cover of Aizawa to increase the light collection
`
`efficiency....” APPLE-1003, ¶¶91-96. In a significant extrapolation from the very
`
`simple and purely illustrative description in Inokawa, Patent Owner provides two
`
`incorrect arguments. First, Patent Owner claims that Inokawa’s disclosure is
`
`narrowly-limited to a particular lens that somehow is only capable of operation
`
`with peripheral emitters and a central detector. Second, the Patent Owner claims
`
`that the lens of Inokawa directs all incoming light rays “to the center of the sensor”
`
`and would “direct light away from the periphery-located detectors as in Aizawa,”
`
`regardless of the direction of light propagation of each ray, which is a violation of
`
`elementary laws of light propagation that would be familiar to a POSITA. POR,
`
`16, 20; see also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you
`
`have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or
`
`directed towards the center.”). Based on these two incorrect claims, the Patent
`
`Owner insists that there would be no motivation to combine.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner’s misinformed understanding of Inokawa’s lens as well as
`
`lenses in general is demonstrated by their description of Inokawa’s lens 27 as
`
`“focus[ing] light from LEDs (21, 23)...to a single detector (25) in the center” and
`
`“direct[ing] incoming light to the centrally located detector.” POR, 14; see also
`
`APPLE-1042, 170:12-20 (“To be precise, my opinion is that...Inokawa’s convex
`
`4
`
`
`
`lens 27...would redirect light from the...measurement site towards the center.”); see
`
`also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you have a
`
`convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or directed
`
`towards the center.”).
`
`5.
`
`A correct understanding of Inokawa’s lens as well as of reflectance type
`
`pulse sensors in general (like those disclosed by each of Aizawa, Inokawa, and
`
`Mendelson-1988) readily exposes Patent Owner’s flawed rationale. Indeed, as I
`
`noted during deposition, a POSITA would understand that Inokawa’s lens
`
`generally improves “light concentration at pretty much all of the locations under
`
`the curvature of the lens,” as opposed to only at a single point at the center as
`
`asserted by Patent Owner. Ex. 2006, 164:8-16.
`
`6.
`
`Among other things, because Inokawa is a reflectance-type pulse detector
`
`that receives diffuse, backscattered light from the measurement site, its lens cannot
`
`focus all incoming light at a single point. Ex. 2006, 163:12-164:2 (“A lens in
`
`general, when placed in the view of a diffuse optical source, doesn’t produce a
`
`single focal point.”). Indeed, as I previously explained, “light entering and
`
`returning from the tissue will follow many different random paths,” and there are
`
`“variations in the path associated with the randomness of the scattering.” Ex.
`
`2020, ¶128. Reflectance type pulse detectors and oximeters, as in each of Aizawa,
`
`Inokawa, and Mendelson-1988, work in this manner, by detecting light that has
`
`5
`
`
`
`been “partially reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered by the skin and other
`
`tissues and the blood before it reaches the detector.” Ex. 2012, 86. That is, as a
`
`POSITA would have clearly understood, light that backscatters from the
`
`measurement site after diffusing through tissue reaches the active detection area
`
`from various random directions and angles. APPLE-1046, 803 (“The incident
`
`light emitted from the LED’s diffuses in the skin in all directions. This is evident
`
`from the circular pattern of backscattered light surrounding the LED’s”); Ex. 2012,
`
`90 (“In a reflectance oximeter, the incident light emitted from the LEDs diffuses
`
`through the skin and the back scattered light forms a circular pattern around the
`
`LEDs”), 52 (“Light scattering causes the deviation of a light beam from its initial
`
`direction”). Therefore, a POSITA would know that there is no lens of any shape,
`
`material, or orientation that would be capable of refracting all of the light from a
`
`diffuse light source to a single focus. Further, a POSITA would know that there is
`
`no lens of any shape, material or orientation that would be capable of concentrating
`
`or condensing all of the light from a diffuse source towards any single location.
`
`7.
`
`As I further show using green arrows below, light emitted from Inokawa’s
`
`LEDs 21, 23 is backscattered from many locations throughout the measurement
`
`site, each scattered return ray propagating towards the lens with a very wide range
`
`of positions and orientations before it can go through the lens 27:
`
`6
`
`
`
`APPLE-1008, FIG. 2 (modified/annotated)
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Such backscattered light cannot all be focused by Inokawa’s lens—let alone
`
`by any lens—at a singular, central location (i.e., detector 25) without violating the
`
`laws of physics (as well as common sense that a POSITA would possess). Further,
`
`such a lens, or any lens, is not capable of directing, concentrating, or condensing
`
`all such light towards any single location.
`
`9.
`
`Basic laws of refraction, expressed as Snell’s law, dictate this behavior of
`
`light. APPLE-1052, 84 (“This is the very important law of refraction, the physical
`
`consequences of which have been studied…for over eighteen hundred years…[i]n
`
`English-speaking countries…[i]t is generally referred to as Snell’s law); APPLE-
`
`1049, 101; Ex. 2012, 52, 86, 90. Even Dr. Madisetti does not dispute the
`
`applicability of Snell’s law. See APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20. For reference, Snell’s
`
`law relates to the even more fundamental Fermat’s principle, which states that a
`
`7
`
`
`
`path taken by a light ray between two points is one that can be traveled in the least
`
`time. See APPLE-1052, 87-92; APPLE-1049, 106-111. In fact, Snell’s law of
`
`refraction is routinely taught in high school science classes as part of an elementary
`
`discussion of the properties of light. Further, Snell’s law can be described on its
`
`own and applied without any referral to underlying references, and there is no
`
`lingering controversy about its validity or use.
`
`10.
`
`Indeed, according to Snell’s law, which is stated in simple algebraic form
`
`and illustrated by the simple diagram below, light passing from one medium to
`
`another is refracted according to the angle of incidence and the values of the
`
`indices of refraction of each medium. A POSITA would be familiar with Snell’s
`
`law from high school science demonstrations of light passing through prisms, as
`
`well as from introductory required physics courses included with their bachelor’s
`
`degree programs. Dr. Madisetti admitted that he was familiar with Snell’s law
`
`from his introductory physics courses. APPLE-1043, 80:20-81:1. Incidentally,
`
`while not critical to this discussion, I note that indices of refraction n1 and n2 must
`
`be positive for human tissue and the types of optical lenses we’re dealing with in
`
`this case and that, in general n1 > n2. See APPLE-1052, 84; APPLE-1049, 101;
`
`APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`11. Referring now to Patent Owner’s annotated version of Inokawa FIG. 2,
`
`which I have marked further to show additional rays of light emitted from LED 21,
`
`it is clear that the rays provided by Inokawa are, at most, only slightly refracted,
`
`consistent with the similarity in indices of refraction between tissue and the lens
`
`materials discussed in this case. In the additional rays drawn in this figure, I have
`
`followed the example provided by Inokawa and shown, at most, only slight
`
`amounts of refraction. From this illustration, and even if larger amounts of
`
`refraction were present, it can be clearly seen how some of the reflected/scattered
`
`light rays from the measurement sites (shown in red) could not possibly reach the
`
`centrally located detector 25 of Inokawa:
`
`9
`
`
`
`POR, 18 (annotated)
`
`
`
`12. A similar drawing is shown below for additional light rays (again shown in
`
`red) emitted from LED 23. In fact, if the 3-dimensional shape of this system is
`
`taken into account, it is clear that the majority of all light rays reflected/scattered
`
`from the measurement site could not be refracted towards the center:
`
`POR, 18 (annotated)
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`13. For these and countless other rays that are not explicitly shown, there is
`
`simply no way for Inokawa’s lens 27 to focus all light at the center of the sensor
`
`device, or even to direct, concentrate, or condense all of the light towards a central
`
`location or any single location. A POSITA would understand that the Inokawa
`
`disclosure describes a lens that provides “improved light-gathering” without
`
`magically directing all the light to the center.
`
`14. Referring now to the region highlighted in purple below where various rays
`
`emitted from the LEDs are shown, only the black ray will refract toward the central
`
`detector according to Snell’s law. The red ray cannot possibly refract to the same
`
`location without violating Snell’s law. There is no type of optical lens in existence
`
`that would somehow cause both of these incoming rays to refract toward the
`
`central detector. This is obviously true because these rays enter the lens at the
`
`same point but with different angles of incidence. Therefore, as required by the
`
`simple algebraic expression of Snell’s law, these rays are refracted with different
`
`angles of refraction, and cannot possibly converge at the center or at any other
`
`location anywhere. This elementary fact would be understood by a POSITA. This
`
`elementary fact clearly and directly contradicts the many statements made by Dr.
`
`Madisetti that the lens directs all incoming light to the center. See APPLE-1041,
`
`40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all
`
`light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or directed towards the center.”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`15. The very simple illustrations shown above are for the simplest case of light
`
`rays incident upon the interface between a surrounding medium and a flat plate of
`
`some transparent material, which could be glass or acrylic or another material. For
`
`the case of light rays incident upon a transparent material with a curved surface,
`
`the simple laws of refraction still determine the behavior of the light. By way of
`
`example, the illustration below shows three representative rays incident upon the
`
`curved surface with three different directions and meeting the surface at three
`
`different locations. In each case, Snell’s law determines the direction of the ray
`
`within the transparent material, dependent only on the direction of the incident ray
`
`and its orientation relative to a line drawn perpendicular to the surface at the
`
`location of entry, and the indices of refraction of the surrounding medium and the
`
`transparent material.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Everything shown in this figure would be plainly understood by a POSITA,
`
`based on the understanding of Snell’s law. Indeed, this set of example rays as
`
`shown are similarly not focused to any single point. With this simple
`
`understanding of Snell’s law, a POSITA could not possibly agree with Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s statement that “[t]o be precise, my opinion is that...Inokawa’s convex
`
`lens 27...would redirect light from the...measurement site towards the center.”
`
`APPLE-1042, 170:12-20. See also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my
`
`Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would
`
`be condensed or directed towards the center.”).
`
`17. This basic and commonsensical understanding of Inokawa’s lens stands in
`
`stark contrast to the position taken by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Madisetti, who
`
`repeatedly stated during deposition that Inokawa’s lens redirects, condenses, and
`
`focus all light from the measurement site toward the center. See APPLE-1042,
`
`166:12-182:3 (“My testimony...to avoid any doubt, is that a POSA viewing the
`
`teachings of Inokawa Figure 2 would understand that the convex lens 27 of Figure
`
`13
`
`
`
`2 would redirect, condense, and focus light toward the center from the
`
`measurement site.”); see also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my
`
`Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would
`
`be condensed or directed towards the center.”). Simple ray tracing based on
`
`Snell’s law, as seen above, incontrovertibly debunks Dr. Madisetti’s simplistic
`
`claim.
`
`18.
`
`Indeed, far from focusing all light toward the center as Patent Owner
`
`contends, Inokawa’s lens provides at best a slight refracting effect, such that some
`
`light rays that otherwise would have missed the detection area are instead directed
`
`toward that area as they pass through the interface provided by the lens. This is
`
`especially true in cases like Aizawa where light detectors are arranged
`
`symmetrically about a central light source, thereby enabling backscattered light to
`
`be detected within a larger circular active detection area surrounding that source.
`
`See Ex. 2012, 86, 90. The slight refracting effect is further confirmed by the fact
`
`that the index of refraction of the tissue is only slightly less than the index of
`
`refraction of typical lens materials (e.g., acrylic). For instance, the refractive index
`
`of human skin is typically around 1.4 (APPLE-1044, 1486) while the refractive
`
`index of a typical lens/cover material for these types of applications, such as
`
`acrylic as in Aizawa, is only slightly higher at around 1.5. APPLE-1045, 1484.
`
`Thus, light entering the lens is only slightly refracted according to Snell’s law.
`
`14
`
`
`
`19. As I explained during my deposition, “given the arrangement of the
`
`corpuscles as the reflecting objects in the space all around underneath [Inokawa’s
`
`lens]...there would be some improvement in the light concentration at pretty much
`
`all of the locations under the curvature of the lens.” Ex. 2006, 164:8-16. As
`
`explained further below, this improvement—which a POSITA would understand is
`
`what Inokawa is referring to—is based on the convex shape of the lens and
`
`application of the most basic of optical concepts, namely Snell’s law. Thus,
`
`Inokawa’s lens “provides an opportunity to capture some light that would
`
`otherwise not be captured.” Id., 204:21-205:12. In short, Inokawa’s lens improves
`
`the light-gathering ability of Aizawa’s sensor by allowing a larger fraction of the
`
`backscattered light to reach the areas covered by the lens. See Ex. 2012, 86, 90;
`
`APPLE-1046, 803.
`
`20. As explained in my Original Declaration, the illustrations below showing the
`
`combination of the inventions of Aizawa and Inokawa provide an example of
`
`positioning of curvature near the locations of the sensors:
`
`15
`
`
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶94
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In the expanded version of this same illustration as shown below, I provide
`
`dotted lines to indicate the approximate orientation of a line orthogonal to the
`
`surface at various locations from the center to the edge. As shown in this
`
`illustration, these orthogonal lines vary in orientation most rapidly near the edge,
`
`where the illustrated curvature of the lens surface is the greatest. As discussed
`
`above with respect to Snell’s law, and as I discussed during my deposition, a
`
`POSITA would understand that, for the case of an index of refraction in the lens
`
`that exceeds the index of refraction in the surrounding tissue, the incoming light
`
`rays are refracted in a way that deflects incoming rays somewhat towards these
`
`orthogonal lines. See Ex. 2006, 166:18-170:8; APPLE-1044, 1486; APPLE-1045,
`
`1484. Because of the curvature of the lens, the orthogonal lines positioned at the
`
`locations of greatest curvature are more generally oriented towards the detector
`
`locations. An elementary understanding of Snell’s law, and of the lens shape
`
`16
`
`
`
`provided in this illustration, would guide a POSITA to understand that a
`
`combination of the teachings of Aizawa and Inokawa as presented in my original
`
`declaration, would lead to an improvement in the light concentration at the location
`
`of the detectors. Very simply, a POSITA familiar with Snell’s law and in view of
`
`Aizawa and Inokawa would understand that the placement of the curvature in the
`
`region near the locations of the detectors would have the effect of improving the
`
`light concentration provided by the lens in these regions compared to the case of
`
`not having such curvature (i.e., using a flat plate).
`
`
`
`22. The above illustrations showing light rays and refraction are offered here to
`
`explain the basic concepts that a POSITA would understand and rely on in
`
`considering the combination of Aizawa and Inokawa. As stated repeatedly in my
`
`deposition testimony, these are illustrations and not precision drawings of an
`
`optimized shape. As I described, a POSITA would appreciate that it is reasonable
`
`to consider a system with one or more LEDs at the center and detectors positioned
`
`17
`
`
`
`around the perimeter. Such a POSITA would understand that nothing about the
`
`presence of the lens of Inokawa necessarily and exclusively causes all incoming
`
`light to be focused at the center. In fact, as illustrated above, a POSITA would
`
`understand that it is possible to utilize the inventions of Aizawa and Inokawa
`
`together in a way that improves the concentration of light at peripheral detectors.
`
`All such a POSITA would need is a basic understanding of Snell’s law to
`
`appreciate that the shape of the lens will improve the concentration of light at the
`
`illustrated detector locations.
`
`23.
`
`Indeed, in a manner fully consistent with the analysis above, the only
`
`disclosure Inokawa includes about its lens—which I relied on consistently in the
`
`Original Declaration—is that its “lens makes it possible to increase the light-
`
`gathering ability of the LED.” Inokawa at [0015]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶60, 93-95.
`
`This general benefit of Inokawa’s lens would be applicable to all pulse measuring
`
`devices, not only those whose LEDs and sensors happen to be arranged in the exact
`
`manner as shown on FIG. 2 of Inokawa. See Ex. 2006, 88:21-89:1 (“The lens
`
`provides a general benefit of light concentration, not just at the center.”); id.,
`
`89:21-90:3 (“...one would understand that light coming in from all angles is not
`
`going to be concentrated to a single location by a convex lens. One of ordinary
`
`skill would know that.”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`24. To support the misguided notion that Inokawa’s lens focuses all incoming
`
`light at the center, Patent Owner repeatedly points to FIG. 14B of the ’628 patent,
`
`shown below, as allegedly showing how a convex lens focuses all light at the
`
`center:
`
`
`
`POR, 19, 24
`
`25. Dr. Madisetti, when asked during deposition to justify why he believes
`
`Inokawa’s lens would focus all measured light at the center, likewise pointed to
`
`FIG. 14B of the ’628 patent, explaining that “Figure 14B and associated
`
`text...support my opinions.” APPLE-1042, 171:20-172:17; see also id., 179:3-16,
`
`181:11-182:3; see also APPLE-1041, 127:22-128:18 (“...a POSA viewing [FIG.
`
`14B]...would understand that light, all light, light from the measurement site is
`
`being focused towards the center.”).
`
`19
`
`
`
`26. Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti’s reliance on FIG. 14B for justification of
`
`their understanding of Inokawa is severely misplaced. While each of Inokawa,
`
`Aizawa, and Mendelson-1988 are directed to a reflectance-type pulse sensor that
`
`detects light that has been backscattered from the measurement site, the scenario
`
`depicted in FIG. 14B shows a transmittance-type configuration where collimated
`
`or nearly-collimated light is “attenuated by body tissue,” not backscattered by it.
`
`APPLE-1001, 35:62-64. Indeed, FIG. 14I of the ’628 patent puts FIG. 14B in
`
`proper context, showing how light from the emitters is transmitted through the
`
`entire finger/tissue before being received by the detectors on the other side:
`
`27. Thus, even if the lens shown in the ’628 patent is presumed to show focusing
`
`of all incoming light at the center of the sensor, this can only occur due to the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`collimated nature of the light coming from the emitters located on the other side of
`
`the measurement site. See Ex. 2007, 287:12-289:5, 291:3-292:9. As I explained
`
`during my deposition, backscattered light collected by a reflectance-type sensor as
`
`in Inokawa, Aizawa, and Mendelson-1988, on the other hand, would result in a
`
`“completely different situation” as each ray of this diffuse light source “will have a
`
`different path as a result of the lens.” Ex. 2007, 287:12-289:5.
`
`28. The light rays provided by the LEDs on one side of the finger in Figure 14I,
`
`if passing through the finger and emerging as collimated light such as shown in
`
`Figure 14B, are capable of being focused by a properly designed, oriented and
`
`positioned lens. A POSITA would understand that this very special case is
`
`incompatible with the situation present in a reflective pulse oximeter, where light is
`
`scattered randomly by the tissue and a portion of that scattered light returns to the
`
`sensor as diffuse light which can be gathered and detected.
`
`29.
`
`In this regard, Dr. Madisetti’s overly-simplistic statements—e.g., “My
`
`testimony...to avoid any doubt, is that a POSA viewing the teachings of Inokawa
`
`Figure 2 would understand that the convex lens 27 of Figure 2 would redirect,
`
`condense, and focus light toward the center from the measurement site” and “...as I
`
`describe in my Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or
`
`otherwise would be condensed or directed towards the center”—clearly only apply
`
`to a very special narrow case of collimated light incident on a convex lens along
`
`21
`
`
`
`the axis of symmetry. APPLE-1042, 166:12-182:3; APPLE-1041, 40:4-11. A
`
`POSITA would understand that Dr. Madisetti’s statements do not reflect the
`
`situation for diffuse light incident on a lens-like surface such as would result from
`
`the combination of the teachings of Aizawa and Inokawa.
`
`30. Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti’s reliance on drawings provided in
`
`paragraphs 119-120 of my Original Declaration filed in IPR2020-01520 for
`
`justification of their understanding of Inokawa’s lens is similarly misplaced. POR,
`
`16, 17, 23; APPLE-1041, 41:7-22, 60:7-61:6. Far from demonstrating the false
`
`notion that a convex lens directs all light to the center, these drawings I previously
`
`provided are merely simplified diagrams included to illustrate, as per dependent
`
`claim 12, one example scenario (based on just one ray and one corpuscle) where a
`
`light permeable cover can “reduce a mean path length of light traveling to the at
`
`least four detectors.” Ex. 2020, ¶¶119-120. As previously illustrated, there are
`
`many other rays that would intersect the interface between the tissue and the lens at
`
`different locations and with different angles of incidence, and the effect of the lens
`
`on this variety of rays is not nearly as simple as the statements provided by Dr.
`
`Madisetti. There is simply no possibility of any lens focusing all incoming rays
`
`from a diffuse light source toward a central location.
`
`31. And even if Inokawa’s lens could hypothetically and magically be
`
`configured to send all reflected light toward the center, which I certainly don’t
`
`22
`
`
`
`agree with and submit violates fundamental optical principles, Patent Owner’s
`
`assertion that the lens would fail to work for a revised design with a central emitter
`
`and peripheral emitters is fundamentally flawed because of the simple principle of
`
`reversibility of light propagation. The well-known and firmly-established optical
`
`principle of reversibility, which comes from the even more fundamental Fermat’s
`
`principle, APPLE-1049, 87-92, trivially dispels Patent Owner’s claim that
`
`reversing the LED/detector configuration of Inokawa (as in Aizawa) by placing the
`
`detectors around centrally located LEDs would necessarily cause Inokawa’s lens to
`
`send less light to the detectors, thereby rendering Inokawa’s lens ineffective when
`
`applied to Aizawa. POR, 15-20. As I noted above, Fermat’s principle states that a
`
`path taken by a light ray between two points is one that can be traveled in the least
`
`time. See APPLE-1052, 87-92; APPLE-1049, 106-111. It is one of the most
`
`fundamental concepts in optics (and physics for that matter) and readily explains
`
`the principle of reversibility. Simply put, the speed of light is independent of the
`
`direction of propagation for these simple materials, which can be represented by an
`
`index of refraction. Therefore the shortest path between two points is the same
`
`regardless of the direction traveled along the path.
`
`32. According to the principle of reversibility, for instance, “a ray going from P
`
`to S will trace the same route as one from S to P.” APPLE-1052, 92; APPLE-
`
`1049, 110. This principle of reversibility is explicit in Snell’s law, which simply
`
`23
`
`
`
`relates angles of refraction to indices of refraction without any dependence on the
`
`direction that the light is travelling. So, even if a POSITA was not explicitly
`
`familiar with the description of the principle of reversibility of light paths, the very
`
`simple algebraic expression of Snell’s law provides the requirement that light paths
`
`must be reversible. Even as Dr. Madisetti happens to be unfamiliar with the
`
`principle of reversibility of light, it is clear from his testimony that he is familiar
`
`with Snell’s law. Therefore he must admit that the paths of light through
`
`transparent materials with varying indices of refraction must be reversible, as this
`
`is a trivial consequence of the simple mathematical expression of Snell’s Law as
`
`simply and exclusively relating the angles of incidence and refraction of light rays
`
`to the indices of refraction of the materials. See APPLE-1052, 84; APPLE-1049,
`
`101; APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20. The illustration below shows how this principle
`
`of reversibility is a simple consequence of Snell’s law.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`33. To illustrate the relevance of this principle, with reference to Patent Owner’s
`
`annotated version of Inokawa FIG. 2 as shown below, two example ray paths from
`
`the LEDs (green) to the detector (red) can be seen. In this case, the rays originate
`
`from the peripheral LEDs (green) and arrive at the central detector (red).
`
`POR, 14, 18, 21 (annotated)
`
`
`
`34. Now, by flipping the LED/detector configuration, as in Aizawa, and
`
`applying the principle of reversibility, it is readily observed that the two exemplary
`
`paths shown above simply reverse their direction—such that any
`
`condensing/directing/focusing benefit achieved by Inokawa’s lens (blue) under the
`
`25
`
`
`
`original configuration would be similarly achieved under the reversed
`
`configuration (assuming that other factors are kept constant for ease of
`
`comparison):
`
`POR, 13, 16, 20 (modified/annotated)
`
`
`
`35. Of course, as I have stated, the illustration provided by Inokawa was not
`
`intended as a precision optical diagram. Nevertheless, within the intent of the
`
`illustration of Inokawa, it is possible to see that it is possible to switch the locations
`
`of the emitter and detector and that the same light paths in the opposite direction
`
`would be present. A POSITA would appreciate that the direction of the rays in this
`
`drawing can be reversed without any changes to the lens of Inokawa. Therefore, it
`
`is possible to consider a switch of the locations of the detector and emitter in
`
`Inokawa. A POSITA, considering Aizawa and Inokawa would understand that it is
`
`reasonable to use a lens-like surface from Inokawa with the emitter and detector
`
`configuration of Aizawa.
`
`36. When confronted with this basic principle of reversibility derived from
`
`Fermat’s Principle during deposition, Dr. Madisetti refused to acknowledge it,
`
`even going so far as to express ignorance of it (“Fermat’s principle, whatever that
`
`26
`
`
`
`is.”). APPLE-1041, 89:12-19. Dr. Madisetti further tried to brush way the
`
`applicability of this principle as being a “new theory.” Id., 84:2-85:7. Dr.
`
`Madisetti ignores that the reversibility of the paths of light rays is an absolute
`
`requirement of the simple mathematical expression of Snell’s law, with which he is
`
`familiar according to his own testimony.
`
`37. But far from being a new theory, this fundamental concept of the
`
`reversibility of light paths, consistent with the simple algebraic expression of
`
`Snell’s law, forms the basis of all Aizawa-based combinations as I previously set
`
`forth. See, e.g., APPLE-1003, ¶54 (explaining that Aizawa would operate in the
`
`same manner even with “a centrally located detector [surrounded] by a plurality of
`
`emitters.”); see also APPLE-1048, ¶79 (“Although Inokawa shows its two emitters
`
`emitting light toward a centrally located detector, one of ordinary skill would have
`
`recognized that the same effect can be achieved by having the emitters located
`
`centrally instead and emitting radially outward. Indeed, Aizawa itself recognizes
`
`this reversibility, stating that while the confi
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
