1
`
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation’s
`Demonstratives For Trial Hearing
`
`January 19, 2022
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`IPR2020-01523 (Patent 8,457,703)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation’s
`Demonstratives For Trial Hearing
`
`January 19, 2022
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`IPR2020-01523 (Patent 8,457,703)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Diab + Amano
`
`Diab + GK-POSITA
`
`Amano
`
`Diab + Amano + Edgar
`
`Diab + GK-POSITA + Edgar
`
`Amano + Turcott
`
`Diab + Amano + Turcott
`
`Diab + GK-POSITA + Turcott
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds By Claim
`
`Claims
`
`Ground
`1A
`
`Ground
`1B
`
`Ground
`1C
`
`Ground
`2A
`
`Ground
`2B
`
`Ground
`2C
`
`Ground
`3A
`
`Ground
`3B
`
`1-3, 15-17
`
`4-7, 18
`
`9-10, 12-
`14, 20, 22-
`24
`
`11, 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Reasons Grounds 1A-2C Do Not Demonstrate
`Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner fails to show:
`
`1A
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`Motivation to “suspend and not execute” MAS module
`
`Diab/Amano disclose operating at lower power
`consumption level
`
`Diab/Amano compare processing characteristics to a
`predetermined threshold
`
`Diab/Amano reduces an amount of processing
`
`Diab/Turcott reduces activation of an attached sensor
`
`Motivation to combine Diab and Amano
`
`Motivation to combine Diab, Amano, and Edgar
`
`Motivation to combine Diab, Amano, and Turcott
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claims 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`’703 Patent Discloses Low Power Patient Monitors
`
`“Increasingly, pulse oximeters are being utilized
`
`in portable, battery-operated
`
`applications…[that] create an increasing
`
`demand for lower power and higher
`
`performance pulse oximeters.”
`
` Ex. 1001 at 1:55-63.
`
`Based on the measurements or statistics, the
`
`monitor modifies “power consumption by, in
`
`effect, increasing or decreasing the number of
`
`input samples received and processed.”
`
` Ex. 1001 at 6:9-11.
`
`— POR 5-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`’703 Patent – Intermittently Reducing The Duty Cycle
`
`— POR 8-10; Ex. 1001, 5:61-66, Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Duty Cycle Impact on Power Consumption
`
`— POR 9-12; Ex. 1001, 8:29-42, Fig. 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Diab
`
`Assigned to Masimo
`
`Discloses methods of isolating a primary or
`
`secondary signal portion from a composite
`
`measured signal
`
` Ex. 1007 at 3:16-21, 8:65-9:4, Figs. 4-5
`
`— POR 27-28; Ex. 2001, ¶53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Examiner Considered Diab
`
`— POR 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`— Ex. 1001, page 2
`
`
`
`Amano
`
`“Pulse wave examination apparatus, blood
`pressure monitor, pulse waveform monitor
`and pharmacological action monitor”
`
`Characterizes pulse waveform “by the
`classification in Chinese medicine”
`
`Detects motion using an acceleration
`sensor
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Turcott
`
`— POR 57-59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`— Ex. 1006, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`Claims 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument to Combine Diab and Amano
`
`— POR 33-41; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`— Pet. 17; Ex. 1003, ¶54
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument to Combine Diab, Amano, and Turcott
`
`— POR 61-67; Ex. 2001, ¶¶105-114; PO’s Sur-Reply 23-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`— Pet. 38; Ex. 1003, ¶80
`
`
`
`“Reducing/Reduce Activation Of An Attached Sensor”
`
`— Pet. 6
`
`—POR 19-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Turcott Describes A Single, Low Duty Cycle
`
`— Ex. 1006, 11:51-59
`
`— POR 60-61; Ex. 2002, ¶¶42, 101-104; PO’s Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Alleged Motivations to Modify Diab and Amano Based on
`Turcott
`
`Optimize signal-to-noise ratio
`
`Minimize power consumption
` Petition 38-40; Petitioner’s Reply 19.
`
`— POR 61-67; Ex. 2002, ¶¶105-114; PO’s Sur-Reply 23-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Diab, Amano, and Turcott
`
`POSITAs interested in minimizing power consumption would have selected a
`single, low duty cycle
`
`No reason to believe Diab/Amano required signal-to-noise ratio optimization or
`further power consumption
`
`POSITA would have been discouraged from reducing activation of Diab’s
`sensors without patient protections
`
`Turcott is an invasive, implantable monitoring device
`
`Petitioner never explains how Diab would have reduced the duty cycle in real-
`time
`
`— POR 61-67; Ex. 2002, ¶¶105-114; PO’s Sur-Reply 23-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Operation of Diab’s Heart/Pulse Rate Module (410)
`
`— POR 33-41; PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`— Ex. 1007, 49:29-32, 50:27-29, Fig. 20; see also id., 39:25-30, Fig. 14
`
`
`
`Diab’s Use of Motion
`
`—Ex. 1007, 47:52-56
`
`— POR 33-41; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Figure 21 Describes The Generation of The Clean Waveform
`
`— POR 33-41; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`— Ex. 1007, 49:14-32, Fig. 21
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`— Pet. 16 (annotations in original; yellow highlighting added)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`The Portions of Diab Cited by Petitioner
`
`—Ex. 1007, 35:43-50
`
`—Ex. 1007, 47:2-49:10
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Operation of the Correlation Canceller
`
`—Ex. 1007, 4:45-50
`
`—Ex. 1007, 4:45-50
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Motion Status Input
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 7-11; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-59, 65-73; POR 46-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`— Ex. 2001, Fig. 20
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Argument
`
`—Reply at 5; see also id., 4 (alleged “traditional filtering techniques” include
`“low pass” and “band pass” filtering.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Figure 21 Discloses the Motion Artifact Suppression Module
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 11-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`— Ex. 2001, 48:43-49:13, Fig. 21.
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine Diab and Amano
`
`Alleged Motivation: reduce power consumption
` Petition 10.
`
`Reason No Motivation to Combine:
`
`Different processing algorithms that yield different outputs
`
`No indication Diab would benefit from reduced power consumption
`
`Amano is specifically designed to “suspend and not execute” certain modules
`
`Amano requires an acceleration sensor
`
`— POR 41-45; Ex. 2001, ¶¶70-73; PO’s Sur-Reply 13-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Diab versus Amano’s System
`
`— Ex. 1007, Fig. 20.
`
`— Ex. 1004, Fig. 1.
`
`— POR 41-45; Ex. 2001, ¶¶61-62, 70-73; PO’s Sur-Reply 13-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Operation of the Output Filter and Spectrum Analysis Module
`
`“If motion is large, this filter
`is slowed down, if there is
`little motion or no motion,
`this filter can sample much
`faster and still maintain a
`clean valve.”
`-Ex. 1007, 50:25-27.
`
`— POR 46-48, 52-54; Ex. 2001, ¶¶74-77, 85-90;
`PO’s Sur-Reply 15-17; Ex. 1039, 68:2-72:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`— Ex. 2001, 50:8-14, 50:21-29, Fig. 20.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply 15-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`—Petitioner’s Reply at 10-11.
`
`
`
`Diab’s Method of Determining Motion
`
`— POR 48-52; Ex. 2001, ¶¶79-84; PO’s Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`— Ex. 1007, 47:43-47, Fig. 20
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Argument
`
`— Petitioner’s Reply 14.
`
`—PO’s Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Edgar
`
`— Ex. 1005, 3:58-4:6
`
`— POR 55-56; Ex. 2001, ¶¶91-93
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Reasons Grounds 3A-3B Do Not Demonstrate
`Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner fails to show:
`
`3A
`
`3B
`
`Amano compares processing characteristics to a predetermined threshold
`
`Amano determines measurement values for one or more physiological parameters
`
`Amano/Turcott reduces activation of an attached sensor or reduced duty cycle
`
`Motivation to combine Amano Turcott
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Claims 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Alleged Motivations to Modify Amano Based on Turcott
`
`Optimize signal-to-noise ratio
`
`Minimize power consumption
` Petition 64-66; Petitioner’s Reply 25-27.
`
`— POR 61-67; Ex. 2002, ¶¶105-114; PO’s Sur-Reply 23-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`— Pet. 64.
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine Amano and Turcott
`
`POSITAs interested in minimizing power consumption would have selected a
`single, low duty cycle
`
`Amano already provides a solution to signal-to-noise ratio and power
`consumption and Petitioner provides no evidence the solution is ineffective
`
`Petitioner never explains why a POSITA would have been motivated to further
`optimize Amano
`
`POSITA would have been discouraged from reducing activation of
`Richardson’s sensors without patient protections
`
`Petitioner never explains how reducing activation of Amano’s sensor would
`optimize the signal-to-noise ratio and reduce power consumption
`
`— POR 75-79; Ex. 2001, ¶¶130-136; PO’s Sur-Reply 29-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relies on Amano’s Acceleration Sensor in
`Grounds 3A-3B
`
`— Pet. 50
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`— Ex. 1004, 21:9-12, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Constructions of “Processing Characteristics”
`
`“In Ground 1A, these limitations are rendered obvious under a limiting
`interpretation requiring ‘processing characteristics’ to be obtained
`from a signal provided by a photodetector.’”
`
`— Pet. 50; Ex. 1003, ¶97; Ex. 2003, 121:17-122:21
`
`“Amano [Grounds 3A-3B] teaches these limitations based on an
`alternative non-limiting interpretation of ‘processing characteristics’
`that is met by Amano’s acceleration sensor output.”
`
`— Pet. 51; Ex. 1003, ¶98; Ex. 2003, 133:1-9
`
`— POR 21-23; PO’s Sur-Reply 2-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “Limiting” Construction Is Correct
`
`Correct construction: “Processing
`characteristics are determined from a
`signal received from one or more
`detectors configured to detect light.”
` POR 23; Ex. 2001, ¶¶44-49.
`
`Claims require receiving at least one
`signal “from one or more detectors
`configured to detect said light after
`attenuation by said tissue”
` POR 24-25; Ex 2001, ¶46.
`
`— POR 23-27; Ex. 2001, ¶¶43-49; PO’s Sur-Reply 4-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 4-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`— Petitioner’s Reply 1-3.
`
`
`
`“Power Consumption Estimate” Determination
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 5-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`— Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`Amano Pulse Waveform Determinations
`
`— Ex. 1004, 1:41-45.
`
`— Ex. 1004, 23:4-9.
`
`— POR 71-72; PO’s Sur-Reply 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Argument
`
`— Petitioner’s Reply 24.
`
`— PO’s Sur-Reply 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
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
