PTAB

IPR2015-01688

InfoBionic Inc v. CardioNet Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Remote Patient Monitoring Apparatus and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’403 patent describes an apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and assessing a patient's status. The system includes a portable monitoring unit worn by the patient and a central monitoring device that communicate wirelessly, allowing the portable unit to transmit sensor data and receive programming instructions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-16, and 19-23 under §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sellers (Patent 5,678,562).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sellers discloses every element of the challenged claims. Sellers describes a remote monitoring system where a portable monitor (monitor 10) worn by a patient collects physiologic data (e.g., ECG signals from electrodes) and transmits it to a remote computer system (110) via a wireless modem. Petitioner mapped Sellers’ monitor 10 to the claimed "portable monitoring unit" and the remote computer system 110 to the "central monitoring device." The two programmable microprocessors in Sellers (acquisition processor 52 and command processor 66) were argued to meet the "programmable microprocessor" limitation. Petitioner contended these processors are responsive to activating parameters, such as a "preselected state of the...sensor" (e.g., when ECG data reaches a pre-programmed alarm limit) and a "request signal from an external source" (e.g., a command from the remote computer system). For claim 4, Petitioner asserted that Sellers' command processor 66 changes from an "inactive state" (powered down to save battery) to an "active state" in response to these activating parameters.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 3, 5, 8-10, 17, and 18 under §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sellers (Patent 5,678,562) and Stutman (Patent 5,416,695).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Sellers does not teach certain dependent claim limitations, Stutman supplies the missing elements. Stutman discloses a medical alert system with portable patient telemetry devices that transmit physiologic and location data to a host computer.
      • Claim 3 (location-determining device): Stutman explicitly teaches a "radio positioning device 325, such as GPS or Loran" integrated into its portable telemetry device to collect and transmit the patient's geographic location.
      • Claim 5 (additional monitoring device): Stutman discloses "subscriber units 20," such as portable computers, that allow medical personnel to remotely review patient data from the host computer, satisfying the limitation for an additional monitoring device in communication with the central device.
      • Claim 10 (periodic status query): While Sellers discloses transmitting data at "predefined intervals," Stutman explicitly teaches "periodic polling" of all patient devices by the host computer, which maps to the claimed periodic status query.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted several motivations. A POSITA would combine Stutman’s location-determining device with Sellers’ monitor to enable emergency personnel to locate a patient when an abnormal condition (e.g., an adverse cardiac event) is detected, a predictable improvement. A POSITA would add Stutman's subscriber units to Sellers' system to allow specialist physicians to review patient data remotely, improving efficiency and reducing costs. Finally, incorporating Stutman’s periodic polling would be a simple and known method to further conserve battery life in Sellers' portable monitor, a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques (e.g., adding GPS to a portable device) to a known system (Sellers) to achieve predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Inactive state" (Claim 4): Petitioner proposed this term means "an operating state of the microprocessor in which power management is applied to reduce power consumption relative to the active state." This construction was based on the patent's description of a power management unit and prosecution history where the Patent Owner distinguished the invention based on its power-saving features.
  • "Programmable" / "reprogramming" (Claims 1, 15, 16, 17, 21): Petitioner argued "programmable" means that "instructions... or variables for use in the instructions, can be inserted into a memory associated with the microprocessor," and "reprogramming" means "updating the instructions or the variables." This construction was central to mapping Sellers' disclosure, where a remote computer could download new analysis algorithms or parameters to the portable monitor.
  • "Activating parameter" (Claims 1, 12, 15, etc.): Petitioner proposed this term means "a value or a signal which causes the microprocessor to take an action." This broad construction was argued to encompass both internal triggers (e.g., a sensor reading crossing a threshold) and external triggers (e.g., a command from the central device), both of which were disclosed in Sellers.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’403 patent as unpatentable.