Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 28
`Entered: February 16, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 19, 2022
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 28
`Entered: February 16, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 19, 2022
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAN SMITH, ESQUIRE
`KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSH STOWELL, ESQUIRE
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`January 19, 2022, commencing at 2:08 p.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Chris Hofer, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Welcome back. I am Judge Cocks and
`
`again joined by Judge Wieker and Judge Kinder. This is session three of our
`lengthy oral hearing session today. This session we'll hear oral argument for
`IPR2020-01524 involving patent 10,433,776 and let's begin with
`introduction of counsel. Would counsel for Petitioner who will be arguing
`this session please introduce themselves.
`
`MR. SMITH: This is Dan Smith for Petitioner Apple and I'm joined
`by my colleagues Karl Renner and Kim Leung.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And would
`counsel for Patent Owner please introduce themselves.
`
`MR. STOWELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Josh Stowell
`of Knobbe, Martens on behalf of the Patent Owner Masimo.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Stowell, and before we
`start to aid our court reporter, when you speak if you could please identify
`yourself by name just so he can sort it out. Thank you. All right, Mr. Smith.
`We have provided 40 minutes for each side and as is the norm Petitioner will
`argue their case first and may reserve rebuttal time. Patent Owner will then
`argue their opposition to Petitioner's case and may reserve surrebuttal time
`and then we will conclude with rebuttal and surrebuttal. So, Mr. Smith,
`whenever you're ready the virtual podium is yours.
`
`MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. Just at the top I'd like to say
`we'll reserve ten minutes for rebuttal. So good afternoon, Your Honors --
`
`JUDGE COCKS: I'm sorry, you cut out --
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. SMITH: -- and may it please the Board.
`JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Smith, you cut out a little bit there.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE COCKS: Did you say ten minutes?
`MR. SMITH: Yes, ten minutes.
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: (Indiscernible).
`JUDGE COCKS: Yes.
`MR. SMITH: Great. Good afternoon, Your Honors, and may it
`please the Court. As I said I'm Dan Smith on behalf of Apple and I'm joined
`by my colleagues Karl Renner and Kim Leung. Today during our
`presentation we're going to generally go in the order listed in the table of
`contents on slide 2. We'll start with a review of the '776 patent and the
`Richardson reference. We'll then move to selected issues raised with respect
`to the Richardson obviousness ground before turning to selected issues
`related to the combination of Richardson and Turcott.
`If we could go to slide 4. The '776 patent may seem familiar
`throughout this presentation. It's a continuation of the '703 patent from the
`prior hearing and as a consequence the two patents share a common
`specification. Like the '703 the '776 is generally directed to techniques for
`operating a patient monitor, for example a pulse rate monitor, to reduce
`power consumption during operation.
`On slide 5 we see representative claim 1. As shown here claim 1 is
`directed to a method for operating a patient monitor which is configured to
`monitor at least a pulse rate of a patient by processing signals responsive to
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`light attenuated by body tissue and I imagine this type of configuration is
`sounding familiar at this point. The device emits light into the tissue and
`measures physiological parameters based on how the light is attenuated by
`the tissue.
`So, the claim contemplates operating the patient monitor according to
`two different control protocols, the first and a second. When operating in
`the first control protocol the patient monitor generally adds two attributes. It
`operates a control protocol light source according to a first duty cycle and it
`calculates measurement and values of the pulse rate of the patient based on
`received light signals.
`When operating in the second control protocol the patient monitor is
`similar. It has two attributes. It operates a control protocol light source
`according to a second duty cycle and it calculates measurement values of the
`pulse rate of the patient based on the received light signals. The claim also
`calls for a transition from the first to the second control protocol based on a
`trigger signal that is generated responsive to, for example, signal quality
`characteristics of signals received from the detector. The claim also
`specifies that the power consumption of the control protocol light source
`when operating according to the first source when operating according to the
`first duty cycle is different than the power consumption of the light source
`when operating according to the second duty cycle, and finally the claims
`clear that each of the first and second control protocol light sources include
`one or more of a plurality of light sources making clear that it's not limited
`to just a single LED or single other, you know, type of light emitting
`component. We'll discuss each of these features in the context of the issues.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`
`
`
`If we can go to slide 6. You'll recall that the petition grounds applied
`two different mappings of Richardson. The first mapping assumes that the
`claims require the first and second duty cycles to be different while the
`second mapping assumes that the claims allow the first and second duty
`cycles to be the same. As shown in the excerpts from the petition in the
`POR here on slide 6, the parties agree that the claims require the first and
`second duty cycle to be different. So, all of the record evidence
`demonstrates unpatentability under either interpretation. We're going to
`focus our presentation today on the first mapping of Richardson.
`If we could go to slide 8. And as highlighted in the clips on the right
`side of this slide, Richardson contemplates two different operating states that
`are relevant to the first mapping and I'll briefly explain each of them, then
`discuss the application of the claims. Starting with the lower right clip in
`blue that is State 1 in Richardson and that's Richardson's normal operating
`state in which the first control protocol light source component LEDs are
`operated according to, excuse me, the control protocol light source
`component LEDs are operated with the infrared LED having a duty cycle
`greater than 25 percent and the red LED having a duty cycle of 25 percent.
`The output of State 1 is signals reflecting discernible physiological
`characteristics based on light captured after interacting with the illuminated
`tissue.
`The upper right clip shown in purple is State 2 of Richardson. State 2
`is used to detect changes in ambient light in the red channel. It occurs every
`30 seconds. Richardson describes it occurs every 30 seconds. Effectively
`what happens is the device turns off the red LED and continues to measure
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`the received red light. With the red LED off, any red light received can
`safely be assumed to be noise since it clearly was not emitted by the red
`LED. So, during this time the components of the control protocol light
`source are operated according to a certain profile. The infrared LED
`continues to operate at a duty cycle of greater than 25 percent. The red LED
`is turned off and therefore operates at a zero percent duty cycle. One thing
`to note is that measurements are still made in this state by virtue of the
`infrared LED continuing to operate. So, the output of State 2, or what's
`computed during State 2 are values to be used in reducing error from
`ambient light in the normal operation mode in State 1, such as an operating
`frequency for the red LED where the noise will be low (phonetic). So, the
`petition contends that, and that's shown in the slide, that State 2 of
`Richardson maps to the first control protocol in the claim and State 1 of
`Richardson maps to the second control protocol of the claim.
`If we go to slide 9. So, in the first mapping of Richardson, the first
`control protocol light source and the second control protocol light source
`both include the red LED and the infrared LED of Richardson's patient
`monitor and the two different control protocols are used as follows. For the
`claimed first duty cycle State 2 of Richardson operates at a reduced power
`with the red LED at zero percent duty cycle and the infrared LED at at least
`25 percent duty cycle. For the claimed second duty cycle State 1 of
`Richardson operates with increased power consumption that comes from the
`red LED operating at approximately 25 percent duty cycle and the infrared
`LED operating at least 25 percent (audio interference) and Dr. Anthony
`offers unrebutted testimony explaining that Richardson's stated difference in
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`component light source duty cycles that would be, you know, zero and 25
`for State 2 and 25 and 25 for State 1 but that renders obvious a different in
`the duty cycles used by Richardson to operate the first and second control
`protocol light sources and that's Anthony's declaration for example at
`paragraph 15. If we go to slide 13.
`JUDGE KINDER: This is Judge Kinder. I know you're on a roll,
`sorry to slow you down, but I just want to be clear. What are you
`identifying as the first control protocol light source in this mapping?
`MR. SMITH: In this mapping we're identifying collectively the red
`and infrared LEDs and as we stated that's, you know, that's consistent with
`the claim language where it states that the first and second control protocol
`light sources can include one or more light sources.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay.
`MR. SMITH: Okay. All right. So, on slide 13. So Masimo argues
`that State 2 of Richardson where ambient light is detected cannot satisfy the
`claimed first control protocol because Richardson's red LED has a zero
`percent duty cycle in State 2 which it argues does not satisfy the claim
`requirement for operating the control protocol light source according to a
`duty cycle. But Masimo fails to appreciate that the control protocol light
`source can include multiple LEDs and the petition did in fact map it this way
`with both the red and infrared LEDs of Richardson collectively making it
`out to be a control protocol light source.
`Thus, the control protocol light source in Richardson is active in State
`2 when considering the infrared LED is at 25 percent duty cycle while the
`red is at zero. The analogy would be, you know, if the lights in your room
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`were on but one of the bulbs is inactive that doesn't mean that all the lights
`in the room are inactive.
`If we go to slide 14. Indeed, claim 1 expressly contemplates that each
`of the first and second control protocol light sources include one or more of
`a plurality of light sources and that one of the component LEDs has a zero
`percent duty cycle, it doesn't put the entire light source into an inactive state
`as suggested by Masimo. Let's go to slide 15.
`JUDGE KINDER: This is Judge Kinder again. Could you address
`the Patent Owner's argument about, you know, whether or not the zero
`percent duty cycle makes sense? I think their argument is basically you
`essentially couldn't calculate the measurement values of the pulse rate that
`are responsive to light from the first control protocol light source as required
`by claims 1 and 11 and I guess if you had a light control protocol light
`source had a duty cycle of zero percent, the light source would essentially be
`inactive and would not generate light. Can you address that?
`MR. SMITH: Yes. So the, as we said, the red LED is operating at a
`zero percent duty cycle so, you know, as we explained the red LED is turned
`off during that state so we can measure ambient noise. The infrared LED
`continues to operate and Richardson explicitly discloses that measurements
`continue to be made based on the infrared LED signals during that state. So,
`you know, any contention that the light source, you know, the light source
`that collectively makes up, you know, is made up by the red and infrared
`LEDs any contention that that is, you know, that that's turned off during
`State 2 is incorrect. The clear disclosure from Richardson says that
`measurements continue to be made based on the infrared signals. Does that
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE KINDER: Yes, I think so. But when it's turned off would
`there be a ratio? I think Patent Owner tries to say, you know, a correct
`construction of duty cycle is having the ratio. What would your ratio be
`when it's a zero?
`MR. SMITH: I think that, I mean, you know, zero over the full cycle
`time is still a ratio; right? I mean, it's -- I'm not aware of anything in the
`definition of a duty cycle that requires it to have an active time. You can
`certainly have a ratio that's zero to whatever the total cycle time is. I think
`that, you know, in this particular instance it doesn't really matter because we
`still have one of the component LEDs of the control protocol light sources
`still active so you still do have a, you know, it's not like the entire thing is
`inactive. Their contention I believe is that if the entire light source is
`inactive you would not have a duty cycle. Well, certainly the infrared LED
`is stated as having, you know, as being active and being activated
`throughout State 2 and particularly called out as having a duty cycle of
`greater than 25 percent.
`So, I -- there are various ways that you could calculate like an overall
`duty cycle for, you know, including both the red and infrared LEDs. I mean,
`you could take the, you know, look at it as kind of an aggregate of the cycle
`time for both of the LEDs and then do a ratio of the active time that's
`associated with both of them, you know, and then effectively that would
`give you the duty cycle for the combined light source. But I don't think we
`have to do that here. You know, I think it's clear that --
`JUDGE KINDER: Let me ask one follow-up question I guess. I think
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`your position, as long as at least one of the plurality of light sources is
`operated at a duty cycle greater than zero percent then you can calculate
`measurement values but I guess looking at the specification, and I'm having
`trouble following this particular line of argument because I don't see any
`examples in the specification where, you know, one of the light sources is
`operated essentially in an off state to achieve a duty cycle or essentially a
`duty cycle of zero percent and one would not be at off or whatever. So, are
`there any examples in the spec what you're proposing?
`MR. SMITH: Well, I know that -- sorry, I do know that the '776 spec
`does talk about intermittently operating both the infrared and red -- I don't
`know if it says infrared and red -- but both of the LEDs, you know, turning
`them on and off intermittently during the course of measurement. I don't
`know (indiscernible) --
`JUDGE KINDER: But I guess my question -- yes, my question is
`more specific I guess where one light source would be, as you're using here
`kind of a plurality of ratios where one light source is essentially off or zero
`and one is not to achieve that particular first duty cycle for the protocol light
`source.
`MR. SMITH: So, I'm not sure if that's in the '776 specification. I can
`certainly get you an example during rebuttal time. I do know that the fact --
`that the light source is actually made up of the two component light sources.
`I think Patent Owner's objection to the concept of the zero percent duty
`cycle is that no measurement can take place when there's a duty cycle of
`zero percent and in State 2 of Richardson, you know, measurements still do
`take place based on the infrared signals. So, I think that -- go ahead.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Yes. I'm sorry about that. We've got a little bit of
`a lag. Thank you. This is Judge Kinder again. I think the Patent Owner,
`one of their arguments is that the specification of the '776 patent doesn't
`disclose monitors that simultaneously drive multiple LEDs at different duty
`cycles. Would you agree with that?
`MR. SMITH: I want to make sure and get you an answer on that in
`rebuttal if that's all right. I don't -- I'm not aware of an example of it right
`here standing here, but I do think that nothing in the claims forecloses such a
`configuration. I mean, the claims specifically talk about there being the
`ability of the control protocol lights to have multiple component LEDs
`within them and I'll also note that nothing in the claims appears to preclude
`the duty cycle from being zero, and I'll also point out that there's a dependent
`claim, I believe it's claim 9, that specifically talks about one of the control
`protocols that the light source is operated in a data off state which --
`JUDGE KINDER: I believe that's claims 6 and 9 I think.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. And in the briefing Patent Owner did equate that
`data off state to the LED being inactive. That's in the Patent Owner
`response. I'm not sure on the page on that. But I mean it stands to reason I
`mean if, you know, have the LED in the data off state where you're not able
`to do any measurements that the LED would in fact be off and not sending
`any light signals. So, I think that, you know, I do think that a zero percent
`duty cycle is -- would be contemplated by the claims. Based on those
`dependent claims I think it shows that the light source can be in that data off
`state but I don't think that by virtue of both the red and the infrared LED
`being part of the control protocol light sources we're alleging, we're never at
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`an actual zero percent duty cycle where measurements wouldn't be possible.
`JUDGE KINDER: So, let's talk about the data off state I guess that
`you kind of brought up as one example. Both parties cite the portion of the
`specification that explains that in conjunction with an intermittently reduced
`duty cycle where there's 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.
`So, you know, I hate to try to construe parts of the specification but in
`your interpretation then what does in conjunction with mean? To me it
`would seem like it could mean that the data off state operates essentially
`concurrently with the low and high duty but the first duty cycle still could be
`different than the second and still different from the data off state. What's
`your interpretation or how do you read in conjunction with?
`MR. SMITH: I think I agree with your interpretation. If the
`component of the light source can be in that data off state and measurements
`are still taking place, I think that's the only read of that is that -- I mean, in
`order for measurements to be taking place you have to have at least one of
`the component LEDs be active. There have to be light signals being sent.
`So, you know, if there's a -- if the specification states that there is a state
`where we can be in the data off state but we're still doing measurements
`according to the first duty cycle or the second duty cycle I think, I mean it
`seems like it has to be that interpretation.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: Okay. All right. So, I think we were on slide 15 and
`here we're showing a portion of the Petitioner reply where we again noted
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`that our mapping has been consistent throughout the proceeding, that the
`first and second control protocol light sources include both the red and
`infrared LEDs from Richardson. In State 2, the first control protocol, the
`duty cycles are red zero percent, infrared's 25 percent so the total duty cycle
`of the light source including both LEDs is not zero.
`In the interest of time I won't belabor that point anymore as we've
`discussed it quite a bit. Let's go to slide 24. So, a related issue to this duty
`cycle issue that we've been discussing which relates to independent claim 1
`was raised regarding dependent claims 2 and 12 which speak to the first duty
`cycle having an active time and an inactive time. This is related because
`here again we see Masimo focusing on a single LED rather than both the red
`and infrared LEDs that collectively make up the control protocol light source
`and unsurprisingly just as we demonstrated that Richardson's control
`protocol (indiscernible) --
`JUDGE KINDER: This is Judge Kinder again.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE KINDER: I'm sorry, this is Judge Kinder again. You say the
`red and infrared LEDs collectively make up the light source, I think we've
`talked about this. I just want to make sure are there any examples in the
`specification of that happening?
`MR. SMITH: In the '776 specification? Let me, again, can I get you
`that on rebuttal?
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: I just want to be sure.
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Yes. I was just trying to differentiate if
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`you were talking about the '776 or if you were talking about Richardson
`because clearly Richardson --
`MR. SMITH: Talking about Richardson.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. And we, you know, we think that the clear
`language of the claims contemplates that. So, you know, as we
`demonstrated Richardson's control protocol light source has a non-zero duty
`cycle despite the LED having zero percent duty cycle because the light
`source actually, you know, as we've mapped it includes both the infrared and
`red LEDs and as a virtue of that with respect to dependent claim 2 the light
`source would also have an active time and an inactive time when considered
`as a collective of the red and infrared LEDs because the infrared is going to
`be active during some portion of the total cycle time.
`So, let's go to slide 19. So, we'll leave control protocol light sources
`for second and start -- we'll discuss the generating a trigger signal limitation.
`Let's actually go briefly back to slide 5 so we can look at the claim and on
`slide 5 this is the last limitation in the left-hand column. The portion of
`claim 1 reads,
`"Generating a trigger signal, wherein generating said trigger signal is
`responsive to at least one of a comparison of processing characteristics to a
`predetermined threshold, a physiological event or signal quality
`characteristics of signals received from the detector."
`Since the claim recites (audio interference) Richardson needs to only
`meet one of these three trigger events and the petition explained that
`Richardson renders obvious generating a trigger signal responsive to signal
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`quality characteristics received from the detector. That would be last option
`on the list. Specifically, Richardson teaches a process for detecting new
`sources of noise that's performed in State 2 which, as we discussed earlier, is
`the first control protocol. This process involves calculating a new noise
`level and estimated values to be used during State 1 processing to improve
`accuracy and that's discussed in the petition at 13.
`Specifically in State 2 described in the last full paragraph of column 9
`of Richardson spanning lines 52 through 65, Richardson turns off the red
`LED to measure ambient in the red channel and it says it leaves the red LED
`off for approximately 1.4 seconds. Note that that's a reference to the time
`that the LED is turned off, not to the time that it takes for Richardson's
`device to process the data that it's processing in State 2.
`So, the disclosure in Richardson looking at line 53, so without ever
`referencing how long the red LED is off Richardson begins a discussion of
`the State 2 computation where it talks about computing new noise values,
`using those values to estimate new State zero values and for the State
`estimated zero values it scales those values by a ratio. The next sentence it
`says then, i.e. without a delay, it returns to State 1 and uses the newly
`estimated values in the post-qualification test (phonetic). So, it makes clear
`the system transitions from State 2 to State 1 when the new noise level
`calculation is complete and that's discussed, for example, at Anthony's
`declaration paragraph 46. So, the completion of the calculation causes the
`trigger signal to be generated to tell the device to transition to State 1, State
`1 being the second control vertical. Let's go to slide --
`JUDGE KINDER: This is Judge Kinder. I guess Patent Owner's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`position is really that there's no proof essentially that the trigger is based
`upon the noise assessed, that it will always be after the noise is assessed after
`a certain amount of time and whatever it's preprogrammed as far as time. Is
`there anything in Richardson that actually, you know, says that after the
`noise is assessed there's a pre-qualifying condition to essentially return to
`State 1?
`MR. SMITH: I think there's a couple of statements actually. It states
`that -- it actually does say for example that the disclosure that I was just
`referencing in Richardson where it describes the computation, you know, it
`says that it's calculating these new noise values. The next sentence says then
`it returns to State 1 immediately after it's describing the computation that
`uses the word --
`JUDGE KINDER: Can we look at that? I guess it's kind of important.
`What part of Richardson are you citing?
`MR. SMITH: Yes. Give me just one second, I apologize. That is
`actually column 9, it should be lines 52 through 65.
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Give us a minute.
`MR. SMITH: So, the very end -- yes. Give me just one second. The
`very end of that portion is where I'm referencing. Just one second, I'll read
`you the exact quote. So, in column 9 at line 57. Let me know if you're
`there.
`
`JUDGE KINDER: Sorry. Yes, I'm there.
`MR. SMITH: So, it starts at 57,
`"For the red channel State 0 value estimates, the microprocessor
`scales the measured values by a ratio of the working gain to the gain value
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`used in State 0. For the infrared channel State 0 value estimates, the
`microprocessor scales the newly estimated red channel values by the ratio of
`the infrared to red channel gains."
`So that's describing the computation. The next sentence,
`"The pulse oximeter then returns to State 1 and uses the newly
`estimated State 0 values in the pulse qualification test."
`I think that's the one place that we're --
`JUDGE KINDER: So, I think Patent Owner's position is it's always
`going to return to State 1. There's no trigger that actually -- it does
`calculations and then it goes to State 1 but it will always do that. It's not
`dependent upon a trigger and if we look at the claim language I think that's
`their position, that the claim language actually requires some specific
`characteristic to make that triggering point and here I’m just honestly not
`sure what that trigger is that forces to the next state.
`MR. SMITH: So, I think the -- what the claim says about what that
`trigger signal has to be, it says that it has to be responsive to signal quality
`characteristics received from the detector. So, in State 2 we're doing
`calculations based on measurements of ambient noise received from the
`detector. So, the calculation that's being done is responsive to signal quality
`characteristics (audio interference) the detector. The completion of that
`calculation is what causes the transition from State 2 to State 1. I mean, yes,
`it may be that it is going to finish those calculations and then it's going to
`return to State 1 but it's not going to do it before that (indiscernible). I'd also
`point your attention to figure 2 of Richardson where it's showing actually the
`State transitions between State 1 and State 2 and it has several errands that
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01524
`Patent 10,433,776 B2
`
`are going in between the different States as you'll notice and the only arrow
`that's going between State 2 and State 1 is labeled 7 and that is described as
`the, you know, as taking place at the completion of the calculation.
`So, I think to the extent Patent Owner is arguing that generating a
`trigger signal requires an explicit generation of some type of, you know,
`overt indicator that the State should change, I don't think that's supported by
`the '776 specification or the claim language. I think that the way we're
`reading a trigger signal is basically just anything that causes its States to
`transition and in this case the completion of the processing is, you know,
`what causes that to happen and I'll also add that I mean, you know, even you
`could say that okay, it's just coming to the end of the calculation and after
`the last instruction it's just going to continue back to State 1, that doesn't
`happen automatically. I mean, the actual computing architecture has to
`detect that that last instruction actually completed and then jump it back,
`even if it's just a function call or anything like that, there is some type of
`signal that says okay, we have to -- this calculation, this instruction is over,
`we need to move to the next instruction. There is, you know, there has to be
`some type of trigger signal taking place at the completion of the processing.
`JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Smith, this is Judge Cocks.
`MR. SMITH: Uh-huh.
`JUDGE COCKS: Yes. Assuming that Judge Kinder's question has
`been answered you are through your direct time. We have had some
`questions so unless you wish to go into your rebuttal time we will give you a
`couple of minutes, perhaps two, to
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
