PTAB

IPR2017-00315

Apple Inc v. Valencell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sensor Module for Headset
  • Brief Description: The ’965 patent discloses a sensor module for detecting physiological information from a subject, such as heart rate or pulse rate. The technology is designed for incorporation into wearable devices like headsets or earbuds, using optical emitters and detectors coupled with light guides that engage a portion of the user's body.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Numaga and Vetter - Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Numaga in view of Vetter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numaga (Japanese Application # 2005-040261) and Vetter (Application # 2003/0065269).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numaga, a wrist-worn pulse wave sensor, taught all limitations of independent claim 1. Numaga disclosed a housing supporting an optical emitter and detector, along with first and second light guides whose distal ends are configured to press against the skin to deliver and collect light. To address the additional limitations of claims 3 and 4, Petitioner asserted that Vetter taught a wrist-worn pulse sensor that explicitly included a motion sensor (an accelerometer) and a processor. Vetter’s processor was configured to use signals from the motion sensor to remove motion artifacts from the optical detector’s signal, thereby improving accuracy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to solve the well-known problem of motion artifacts corrupting physiological sensor data. Petitioner contended that a POSITA, seeking to improve the accuracy and reliability of Numaga’s pulse sensor, would have looked to known techniques for motion artifact cancellation, such as the accelerometer and signal processing method taught by Vetter. The combination was presented as the application of a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because integrating an accelerometer and corresponding processing algorithms into a wearable pulse sensor was a common and well-understood practice for improving signal quality.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Fraden - Claims 1 and 8-12 are anticipated by Fraden.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fraden (Application # 2005/0209516).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Fraden, which discloses an optical photo-plethysmographic assembly for an ear canal, taught every element of claims 1 and 8-12. Fraden’s second embodiment described a pulse oximetry sensor with a housing (probe 62, encapsulation 78) supporting optical emitters (LEDs 71, 77) and an optical detector (light detector 73). It further disclosed a first light guide (illuminator 65) and a second light guide (ear plug 64), each having an exposed end surface configured to engage tissue within the ear canal to deliver light into the body and collect modulated light from the body. Fraden also explicitly taught that these light guides could be made of elastomeric materials like silicone resin (for claim 8) or rigid materials like acrylic resin (for claim 9), and disclosed optical coupling materials (lens 81, light coupler 72) for the emitter and detector (for claims 10 and 11).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other challenges, including that claims 1, 2, and 12 are obvious over Numaga alone. Additional obviousness grounds were argued over Numaga in view of Dekker (to add respiration rate calculation), Debreczeny (to add optical dye filters), Rafert (to add elastomeric or rigid light guides), Negley (to add optical coupling material for the emitter), and Miao (to add optical coupling material for the detector). Petitioner also asserted obviousness of claims 2-7 over Fraden in view of references like Verjus (to add headset integration and motion sensing) and Fricke (to add respiration rate calculation).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "engage a portion of a body": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as “contacting the skin or closely adjacent the skin of a subject.” This construction was based on an explicit definition in the ’965 patent’s specification and was important for arguing that prior art sensors, which either touched or were positioned near the skin, met this limitation.
  • "headset": Based on the specification, Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “any type of device or earpiece that may be attached to or near the ear of a user, including peripheral devices.” This broad construction supported applying prior art ear-worn sensors to claims reciting a headset.
  • "housing": Petitioner proposed construing this term as “one or more parts that covers, encloses, supports, or protects; casing.” This clarified that the housing did not need to be a single monolithic structure, allowing multi-part assemblies in the prior art to satisfy the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 8,929,965 as unpatentable.