Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: April 11, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Dismissing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: April 11, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Dismissing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7, 9–
`18, and 20–24 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’703 patent”). We instituted the petitioned review (Paper 7).
`Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 15, “PO Resp.”) to oppose the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 18, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner filed
`a Sur-reply (Paper 20, “Sur-reply”) to the Reply. Patent Owner filed a
`Motion to Exclude Petitioner’s Evidence (Paper 25). Petitioner filed an
`Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 26). Patent Owner filed a Reply
`(Paper 27) to Petitioner’s Opposition. We conducted an oral hearing on
`January 19, 2022. A transcript has been entered in the record (Paper 31,
`“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 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 of the
`’703 patent. We determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that those claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters related to the ’703 patent:
`Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-00048
`
`(C.D. Cal.) (filed Jan. 9, 2020);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01520 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,258,265 B1);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01521 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,628 B1);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01524 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01526 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,994 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01536 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01537 (PTAB
`Aug. 31, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553 B2);
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01538 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554 B2); and
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01539 (PTAB
`Sept. 2, 2020) (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554 B2).
`Pet. 75; Paper 3, 2.
`
`C. The ’703 Patent
`The ’703 patent is titled “Low Power Pulse Oximeter,” and issued on
`June 4, 2013, from U.S. Patent Application No. 16/174,144, filed
`November 13, 2007. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22), (45), (54). The ’703 patent
`relates to a pulse oximeter that may reduce power consumption in the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`absence of certain parameters that may be monitored to trigger or override
`the reduced power consumption state. Id. at code (57). “In this manner, a
`pulse oximeter can lower power consumption without sacrificing
`performance during, for example, high noise conditions or oxygen
`desaturations.” Id.
`As depicted below, the low power pulse oximeter has signal
`processor 340 that derives physiological measurements 342, including
`oxygen saturation, pulse rate, and plethysmograph, from input sensor signal
`322. Ex.1001, 4:64–5:10, Figs. 3, 4.
`
`
`Figure 3 above illustrates a top-level block diagram of a low power pulse
`oximeter. Id. at 4:40–41. Signal processor 340 may also derive signal
`statistics 344, such as signal strength, noise, and motion artifact. Id. at 5:14–
`15, Figs. 3, 4. Physiological measurements 342 and signal statistics 344
`may be input into sampling controller 360, which outputs sampling controls
`362 that in turn are used to regulate pulse oximeter power dissipation by
`causing sensor interface 320 to vary the sampling characteristics of sensor
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`port 302 and by causing signal processor 340 to vary its sample processing
`characteristics. Id. at 5:15–27, Figs. 3, 4. According to the ’703 patent,
`power dissipation “is responsive not only to output parameters, such as the
`physiological measurements 342, but also to internal parameters, such as the
`signal statistics 344.” Id. at 5:24–27.
`The pulse oximeter uses the physiological measurements and signal
`statistics to determine “the occurrence of an event or low signal quality
`condition.” Ex. 1001, 6:25–28. An event determination is based upon the
`physiological measurements and “may be any physiological-related
`indication that justifies the processing of more sensor samples and an
`associated higher power consumption level, such as an oxygen desaturation,
`a fast or irregular pulse rate or an unusual plethysmograph waveform.” Id.
`at 6:28–34. A low signal quality condition is based upon the signal statistics
`and “may be any signal-related indication that justifies the processing or
`more sensor samples and an associated higher power consumption level,
`such as a low signal level, a high noise level or motion artifact.” Id. at 6:34–
`41.
`
`The pulse oximeter “utilizes multiple sampling mechanisms to alter
`power consumption.” Ex. 1001, 5:59–61. One sampling mechanism is “an
`emitter duty cycle control” that “determines the duty cycle of the current
`supplied by the emitter drive outputs 482 to both red and IR sensor
`emitters.” Id. at 5:61–66. The sampling mechanisms “modify power
`consumption by, in effect, increasing or decreasing the number of input
`samples received and processed.” Id. at 6:9–11. “Sampling, including
`acquiring input signal samples and subsequent sample processing, can be
`reduced during high signal quality periods and increased during low signal
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`quality periods or when critical measurements are necessary.” Id. at 6:11–
`15. “In conjunction with an intermittently reduced duty cycle or as an
`independent sampling mechanism, there may be a ‘data off’ time period
`longer than one drive current cycle where the emitter drivers . . . are turned
`off.” Id. at 7:8–12. The occurrence of an event or low signal quality
`triggers a higher duty sensor sampling, allowing high fidelity monitoring of
`the event and providing a larger signal-to-noise ratio. Id. at 8:44–57.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, 12, 15, 20, and 22 are
`independent. Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative and are reproduced below.
`1. A method of managing power consumption during continuous
`patient monitoring by adjusting behavior of a patient monitor, the
`method comprising:
`
`[a] driving one or more light sources configured to emit
`light into tissue of a monitored patient;
`[b] receiving on or more signals from one or more
`detectors configured to detect said light after attenuation by said
`tissue;
`[c] continuously operating a patient monitor at a lower
`power consumption level to determine measurement values for
`one or more physiological parameters of a patient;
`[d]
`comparing
`processing
`characteristics
`predetermined threshold; and
`[e] when said processing characteristics pass said
`threshold, transitioning to continuously operating said patient
`monitor at a higher power consumption level,
`[f] wherein said continuously operating at said lower
`power consumption level comprises reducing activation of an
`attached sensor,
`[g] said sensor positioning said light sources and said
`detectors proximate said tissue.
`
`to
`
`a
`
`6
`
`
`
`a
`
`to
`
`9. A method of managing power consumption during continuous
`patient monitoring by adjusting behavior of a patient monitor, the
`method comprising:
`[a] driving one or more light sources configured to emit
`light into tissue of a monitored patient;
`[b] receiving one or more signals from one or more
`detectors configured to detect said light after attenuation by said
`tissue;
`[c] continuously operating a patient monitor at a lower
`power consumption level to determine measurement values for
`one or more physiological parameters of a patient;
`[d]
`comparing
`processing
`characteristics
`predetermined threshold; and
`[e] when said processing characteristics pass said
`threshold, transitioning to continuously operating said patient
`monitor at a higher power consumption level,
`[f] wherein said continuously operating at said lower
`power consumption level comprises reducing an amount of
`processing by a signal processor.
`Ex. 1001, 11:32–51, 12:5–22 (bracketed identifiers [a]–[g] and [a]–[f]
`added).
`Independent claim 12 is also a method claim that includes similar
`limitations, but its last clause recites “wherein said processing characteristics
`include an override condition.” Id. at 12:29–46. Independent claims 15, 20,
`and 22 are corresponding apparatus claims, each directed to a “patient
`monitor.” Id. at 12:53–67, 13:16–14:3, 14:6–21.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`Edgar
`
`Turcott
`
`E. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Reference
`Publication/Patent Number
`Diab
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,272 issued May 27, 1997
`Amano
`U.S. Patent No. 6,293915 B1 issued Sept. 25,
`2001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,393,311 B1 issued May 21,
`2002
`U.S. Patent No. 6,527,729 B1 issued Mar. 4,
`2003
`
`Exhibit
`1007
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`
`Pet. 3.
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration testimony of Brian W.
`Anthony, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003). Patent Owner relies on the declaration
`testimony of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001).
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`We instituted trial to determine if claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 are
`unpatentable based upon the following grounds:
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`9, 10, 12–14, 20, 22–
`103
`24
`11, 21
`103
`1–7, 15–18
`103
`
`References/Basis
`Diab, Amano
`Diab, Amano, Edgar
`Diab, Amano, Turcott
`Diab and “the General
`Knowledge of a [person of
`ordinary skill in the art]” (“GK-
`POSITA”)
`Diab, GK-POSITA, Edgar
`Diab, GK-POSITA, Turcott
`Amano
`Amano, Turcott
`
`9, 10, 12–14, 20, 22–
`24
`
`11, 21
`1–7, 15–18
`9, 10, 12–14, 20, 22–
`24
`1–3, 15–17
`
`103
`
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, a claim shall be
`construed 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) (2019). The parties offer constructions for the following claim
`terms or phrases (1) “reducing/reduce activation of an attached sensor”
`(claims 1 and 15), and (2) “processing characteristics” (all challenged
`claims). We determine that it is only necessary to consider the meaning of
`“processing characteristics.”
`
`1. “processing characteristics”
`The term “processing characteristics” is one that is required by all of
`the challenged claims. In the body of the Petition, Petitioner offers two
`apparent constructions of the term. In one instance, Petitioner sets forth a
`“limiting interpretation requiring ‘processing characteristics’ to be obtained
`from a signal provided by a photodetector.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 97).
`In another instance, Petitioner expresses that “the plain meaning of
`‘processing characteristics’ includes characteristics or features obtained from
`or used for processing information.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98;
`Ex. 1004, 21:9–49). Dr. Anthony characterizes this “plain meaning”
`construction as constituting “an alternative non-limiting interpretation.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 98.
`In its Response, Patent Owner lays out disagreement with Petitioner
`on the construction of “processing characteristics.” Patent Owner contends
`that neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony has adequately taken a position as to
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`what is the proper or correct construction of “processing characteristics.”
`Patent Owner indicates that on cross-examination, Dr. Anthony, “admitted
`he had not formed an opinion regarding the correct construction.” PO Resp.
`22 (citing Ex. 2003, 126:13–127:5). Because in Patent Owner’s view, Dr.
`Anthony “never formed an opinion regarding the proper construction,”
`Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s claim construction positions should
`be regarded with skepticism. See id. at 23. Patent Owner expresses that the
`panel should “construe ‘processing characteristics’ to require that the
`processing characteristics are determined from a signal received from one or
`more detectors configured to detect light.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 44).
`Notably, Patent Owner likens its proposed construction to “Petitioner’s
`‘limiting construction’” and characterizes that construction as “the plain and
`ordinary meaning” of “processing characteristics,” rather than Petitioner’s
`broader proposed construction of the term. Id. at 24. Patent Owner
`contends that its proposed construction draws supports from the claims
`themselves as well as the Specification of the ’703 patent. Id. at 24–27.
`In particular, Patent Owner notes that all of the challenged claims
`require that one or more signals are received from one or more detectors that
`are configured to detect the light after attenuation by body tissue. Id. at 24
`(referencing independent claims 1, 9, 12, 15, 20, 22). Patent Owner also
`observes that all of the claims require “comparing processing characteristics
`to a predetermined threshold.” Id. Patent Owner reasons the following:
`A POSITA would have understood that the processing
`characteristics are determined from the signal received from the
`detector because (1) the signal received from the detector is the
`only signal referenced in the claims, (2) all data processing in the
`claims depends on the signal from the detector, and (3) as
`discussed herein,
`the specification consistently describes
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`determining the processing characteristics from the signal
`received [from] the detector.
`Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 46).
`
`Patent Owner also explains that throughout the Specification
`the characteristics that are described and shown as being processed are
`those conveyed via signals from light detectors. Id. at 24–27 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 5:28–30, 5:35–38, 5:40–41, 5:46–48, 11:43–47, 12:16–20,
`12:40–44, 12:62–66, 13:25–41:1, 14:15–19, Fig. 4; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 43–
`49).
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner characterizes Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction as “unjustifiably limiting.” Pet. Reply 1. In support of its
`view, Petitioner points to claims 4 and 8 that, according to Petitioner, convey
`a more expansive meaning of “processing characteristics.” Specifically,
`Petitioner contends that because claim 4 recites “said processing
`characteristics comprise signal characteristics from one or more light
`sensitive detectors” the claim allegedly would be “meaningless” if
`“processing characteristics are already required to be ‘determined from a
`signal received from one or more detectors.’” Id.
`Claim 8 recites “said processing characteristics include determining
`an estimate of current power consumption and comparing said estimate with
`a target power consumption.” Ex. 1001, 12:1–4. Petitioner contends that
`the meaning of that claim as informed by the Specification is that in
`determining an estimate of current power consumption, the processing
`characteristics are determined from control engine 440 rather than detector
`front-end 490 (i.e., a light detector). Id. at 2–3.
`In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner responds to Petitioner’s interpretation
`of claims 4 and 8 as allegedly informing the meaning of “processing
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`characteristics.” Specifically, with respect to claim 4, Patent Owner argues
`that Petitioner’s understanding of the claim is incorrect, stating the
`following:
`Petitioner assumes the limitation “from one or more light
`sensitive detectors” is the narrowing limitation of claim 4.
`However, Petitioner ignores that claim 4 is narrower than claim 1
`because
`the “processing characteristics comprise signal
`characteristics.” The ’703 patent discloses that processing
`characteristics can include (1) physiological measurements and
`(2) signal statistics, both of which are received from the one or
`more light sensitive detectors. (Ex. 1001, 4:11-27, Figs. 3-4.)
`Claim 4 is limited to signal characteristics (i.e., as opposed to
`physiological measurements).
`
`The clause identified by Petitioner, “from one more light
`sensitive detectors,” supports Masimo’s construction that the
`“processing characteristics” must come “from a signal received
`from one or more detectors configured to detect light.” (See also
`POR 23-27.)
`Sur-reply 4–5.
`
`In connection with claim 8, and the portions of the Specification cited
`by Petitioner in construing the claim, Patent Owner expresses that Petitioner
`is incorrect in its view that a power consumption estimate is not determined
`from a signal received from detector 490. Patent Owner argues “[a]s
`illustrated by the red lines below, the ‘process status calculator 460’ [orange]
`estimates the current power consumption using a signal received from the
`detector front-end 490 [green].” Id. at 5–6. Patent Owner’s annotated
`version of Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`
`
`The annotated version of Figure 4 above shows a signal path from detector
`front-end 490 to power status calculator 460. Patent Owner explains that,
`while the signal passes through other processing modules before reaching
`power status calculator 460, the power consumption estimate is still
`“determined from a signal received from one or more detectors [490]
`configured to detect light.” Id. at 6.
`In our view, Patent Owner has the better explanation for what a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the ’703 patent as
`to what constitutes the “processing characteristics” that factor into the
`patient monitoring described by the claims. In that respect, we agree with
`Patent Owner’s above-noted assessments of the requirements of claims 4
`and 8. Patent Owner persuasively explains that claim 4 does not emerge as
`meaningless based on Patent Owner’s construction of “processing
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`characteristics” but instead claim 4 further refines the understanding of the
`type of processing characteristics that are received from the light detectors,
`i.e., signal characteristics rather than physiological measurements. We also
`share Patent Owner’s view that the understanding of claim 8 taken in the
`context of the Specification (e.g., Fig. 4), establishes that the estimate of
`power consumption is determined based on signals from light detector 490.
`We agree that Petitioner’s views as to how claims 4 and 8 inform the
`meaning of “processing characteristics” lack support and fall short.
`We conclude that it is inconsistent with the ’703 patent to tease out
`the sweeping premise advanced by Petitioner that simply any information
`that is processed, regardless of its source, can constitute the “processing
`characteristics” that are employed as a part of all of the challenged claims to
`monitor a patient based on light signals. Rather, we rely on the written
`description of the ’703 patent as a useful guide in informing the meaning of
`“processing characteristics,” and conclude that the proper understanding of
`the term is that such characteristics are derived from signals from light
`detectors. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(“It is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim
`construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the
`meaning of the claims.”).
`Accordingly, we conclude that, in the context of the ’703 patent,
`“processing characteristics” are determined from a signal received from one
`or more detectors configured to detect light.
`
`2. Other Claim Terms
`Upon consideration of the entirety of the arguments and evidence
`presented, we conclude no further explicit construction of any claim term is
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of
`record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be
`construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999))).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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
`(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 skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness.1 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). When
`evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also “determine whether
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a combination of prior art
`elements would have produced a predictable result weighs in the ultimate
`determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.
`
`
`1 Neither party presents objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity
`why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). It is
`Petitioner’s burden to show unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). 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).
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner identifies the appropriate level of skill in the art as that
`possessed by a person having
`a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline
`emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software
`technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two
`years of related work experience with capture and processing of
`data or information, including but not limited to physiological
`monitoring technologies or a Master of Science degree in a
`relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work
`experience in the same discipline.
`Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).
`Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of the level of
`ordinary skill. Patent Owner, however, does level a measure of criticism of
`Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as being inconsistent
`with Petitioner’s own declarant, Dr. Anthony, in not accounting for
`experience in “non-invasive optical biosensors.” PO Resp. 16–17.
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner expresses that it “applies the asserted level of
`skill identified in the Petition.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). We
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`determine that the Petitioner’s expressed level of ordinary skill in the art is
`consistent with the ’703 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we
`adopt it in this Decision.
`
`D. Ground Based on Diab and Amano
`Petitioner contends that claims 9, 10, 12–14, 20, and 22–24 of the
`’703 patent would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Diab
`and Amano. Pet. 6–28. Patent Owner challenges that obviousness
`contention. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply.
`
`1. Overview of Diab (Ex. 1007)
`Diab is a U.S. Patent titled “Signal Processing Apparatus.” Ex. 1007,
`code [54]. Diab discloses a “method and apparatus for analyzing two
`measured signals that are modeled as containing primary and secondary
`portions” particularly with respect to blood oximetry measurements. Id. at
`code [57]. Diab further presents “[a] physiological monitor particularly
`adapted to pulse oximetry oxygen saturation measurement comprises two
`light emitting diodes (LED[]s) which emit light at difference wavelengths to
`produce first and second signals.” Id. at 4:51–54.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`Diab’s Figure 11 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 11 above shows “[a] schematic of a physiological monitor for pulse
`oximetry” that “depicts a general hardware block diagram of a pulse
`oximeter 299.” Id. at 34:10–12. Pulse oximeter 299 includes sensor 300
`with light emitters 301 and 302, digital signal processing system 334, and
`display 336. Id. at 34:12–25. Digital signal processing system 334 provides
`outputs to display 336 that may include “blood oxygen saturation, heart rate,
`and a clean plethysmographic waveform.” Id. at 34:25–29.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`Diab’s Figure 14 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 14 depicts a “functional block diagram[] of the operations of the
`pulse oximeter 299 carried out by the digital signal processing system 334.”
`Id. at 38:61–63. Data entering processing system 334 undergoes various
`operations including “demodulation” by demodulation module 400,
`“decimation” by decimation module 402, certain statistical calculations by
`statistics module 404, and a “saturation transform” by saturation transform
`module 406. Id. at 38:66–39:10. “The data subjected to the statistics
`operations and the data subjected to the saturation transform operations are
`forwarded to the saturation operations as represented by a saturation
`calculation module 408 and pulse rate operations as represented in a pulse
`rate calculation module 410.” Id. at 39:10–15.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`
`Diab’s Figure 20 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 20 shows pulse rate module 410. Id. at 47:30. Pulse rate module 410
`includes, inter alia, motion status module 584 and “motion artifact
`suppression module 580.” Id. at 47:33–34. An “average peak width value”
`is provided to motion status module 584 and, “if the peaks are wide, this is
`taken as an indication of motion.” Id. at 47:50–52. “In the case of motion,
`motion artifacts are suppressed using the motion artifact suppression
`module 580.” Id. at 47:55–56. “If motion is not detected, spectral
`estimation on the signals is carried out directly without motion artifact
`suppression.” Id. at 47:52–54.
`
`2. Overview of Amano (Ex. 1004)
`Amano is a U.S. Patent titled “Pulse Wave Examination Apparatus,
`Blood Pressure Monitor, Pulse Waveform Motion, and Pharmacological
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`Action Monitor.” Ex. 1004, code (54). Amano characterizes its disclosure
`as follows:
`
`The present invention relates to a pulse wave examination
`apparatus suitable for specifying the type of human pulse wave,
`a blood pressure monitor using the mean blood pressure and
`pulse pressure as its parameters and a pulse waveform monitor
`and a pharmacological action monitor which use a parameter
`related to a dicrotic notch part of an arterial pressure waveform.
`Id. at 1:7–13.2
`
`Amano’s Figures 37A and 37B are reproduced below:
`
`Figure 37A “is a view showing the condition of a wrist watch-type pulse
`wave examination apparatus which is installed.” Id. at 16:38–40.
`
`
`
`
`2 A “pulse wave is usually defined as a wave of blood which is output from
`the heart and propagates through a blood vessel.” Id. at 1:17–19.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`Figure 37B “is a view showing a pulse wave detecting section of a wrist
`watch-type pulse wave examination apparatus” that is mounted on “the root
`of a finger.” Id. at 16:41–43, 40:44–45. Wrist watch-type pulse
`examination apparatus 1 includes device body 100 with cable 101
`connecting to pulse wave detecting section 10. Id. at 40:23–27.
`
`Amano’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 above “is a block diagram showing the functional structure of the
`pulse wave examination apparatus according to” an embodiment. Id. at
`21:3–5. Pulse wave detecting section 10 detects a pulse waveform and
`outputs the detected signal to body movement elimination section 30. Id. at
`21:5–8. The pulse wave examination apparatus also includes, inter alia,
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`body movement detecting section 20, waveform treating section 21, and
`judging section 22. “[B]ody movement detection section 20 comprises, for
`instance, an acceleration sensor and detects the body movement of a subject
`to output the detected signal as a signal TH to . . . waveform treating
`section 21.” Id. at 21:9–12. “[J]udging section 22 determines whether body
`movement is present or not, based on the body movement waveform TH, to
`yield a control signal C.” Id. at 21:58–60. “[W]hen control signal C
`indicates that no body movement is present the operations of the waveform
`treating section 21 and body movement component elimination section 30
`are suspended.” Id. at 21:64–22:2. Such suspension can result in “reduce[d]
`power consumption in the apparatus.” Id. at 22:6.
`
`3. Discussion
`Petitioner takes the position that Diab and Amano satisfy all the
`features required by claims 9, 10, 12–14, 20, and 22–24. Pet. 6–28. Patent
`Owner disagrees. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Patent Owner
`expresses that each of independent claims 9, 12, 20, and 22 requires “(1)
`operating a patient monitor ‘at a lower power consumption level to
`determine measurement values for one or more physiological parameters of
`(a/said) patient,’ and (2) ‘transitioning to continuously operating . . . at a
`higher power consumption level.’” PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner contends
`that Petitioner’s ground based on Diab and Amano fails to account for those
`features characterized by Patent Owner as the “power consumption
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01523
`Patent 8,457,703 B2
`
`limitations.” Id. at 30.3 We focus first on the parties’ views as to Diab’s
`disclosure.
`
`i. Diab’s Motion Artifact Suppression Module
`A principal basis of disagreement between the parties with respect to
`the power consumption limitations centers on operation of Diab’s “motion
`artifact suppression” module 580. Petitioner contends that Diab describes
`that when motion is detected, “motion artifacts are suppressed using the
`motion artifact suppression module 580,” but “[i]f motion is not detected,
`spectral estimation on the signals is carried out directly without motion
`artifact suppression.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007, 47:52–56). In Petitioner’s
`view, that means that Diab “teaches not executing the motion artifact
`suppression module 580 if motion is not detected.” Id. It is clear that this
`view plays a role in Petitioner’s general proposal that Diab contemplates
`reduced power consumption when the motion artifact suppression module
`allegedly is not executing or operating.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner misunderstands Diab’s
`disclosure. For instance, Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s statement
`that Diab “teaches not executing the motion artifact suppression module 580
`if motion is not detected” is inaccurate. PO Resp. 31 (quoting Pet. 17).
`Rather, Patent Owner explains the following:
`Diab merely discloses that “spectral estimation
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
