PTAB

IPR2017-00319

Fitbit Inc v. Valencell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Generating Data Output Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information
  • Brief Description: The ’941 patent describes a method for generating a data output containing both physiological and motion-related information. The method involves using a single monitoring device with at least one motion sensor and at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor to sense data, which is then processed into a serial data output.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Luo and Craw - Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-13 are obvious over Luo in view of Craw.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo (Application # 2008/0200774) and Craw (Application # 2008/0133699).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Luo, an ear-worn health monitor, disclosed all elements of independent claim 1 except for the specific formatting of the data output. Luo taught a single device with both physiological sensors (PPG) and activity sensors (accelerometer) that processed signals to output health information. Luo’s device included a USB port, which a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood implies a standard serial communication protocol.
    • Motivation to Combine: While Luo taught the desirability of transmitting health data, it did not explicitly detail a data structure for ensuring interoperability. Craw addressed this exact problem by teaching a generalized classification scheme and protocol for the serial transmission of physiological data, enabling a receiving device to extract specific parameters like heart rate. A POSITA would combine Craw’s data serialization method with Luo’s device to improve the device’s ability to communicate its data to external computers, a known design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as implementing a known data serialization protocol (Craw) on a device that already outputs data (Luo) was a predictable and routine integration task.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mault and Al-Ali - Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 are obvious over Mault in view of Al-Ali.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mault (Patent 6,513,532) and Al-Ali (Application # 2003/0181798).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mault, a wrist-watch style activity monitor, taught a single wearable device with a motion sensor (accelerometer) and a PPG sensor to determine activity and heart rate. Mault’s device processed signals from these sensors and transmitted them to a remote computer. However, Mault was silent on the specific format for transmitting multi-parameter data. Al-Ali disclosed a system for processing signals from multiple physiological sensors into a single serial bit stream for transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to implement the data transmission in Mault’s device would need to select a data format. Al-Ali taught a known, predictable solution for formatting multi-parameter physiological data into a serial stream, which was one of only a few common transmission formats (serial or parallel). A POSITA would combine Al-Ali's efficient serial data formatting technique with Mault's multi-sensor device to solve the known problem of transmitting combined physiological and motion data.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known data processing technique (Al-Ali) to a known type of device (Mault) to achieve a predictable result—a structured data output for easy extraction of parameters.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Luo, Craw, and Fricke - Claims 6 and 8 are obvious over Luo in view of Craw and Fricke.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo (Application # 2008/0200774), Craw (Application # 2008/0133699), and Fricke (Application # 2009/0105556).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Luo and Craw. Petitioner argued that claims 6 and 8 required pre-processing PPG signals to reduce motion artifacts using techniques like band-pass filtering and adaptive filtering. Fricke explicitly taught using these exact techniques for an ear-worn PPG device to improve signal-to-noise ratio. Specifically, Fricke disclosed using band-pass filters to remove frequencies outside a range of interest (as required by claim 6) and further using adaptive filtering on the resulting signals to remove motion artifacts (as required by claim 8).
    • Motivation to Combine: Motion artifacts were a well-known problem for PPG sensors. A POSITA seeking to improve the accuracy of Luo's ear-worn PPG sensor would have been motivated to implement a known noise cancellation technique. Fricke provided a detailed solution specifically adapted for an ear-worn PPG sensor, making it an obvious choice to integrate into the Luo/Craw system to improve its performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in applying Fricke's established signal processing algorithms to Luo's device, as both were ear-worn monitors and the techniques were known to effectively reduce motion artifacts.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including: combining Luo/Craw with Wolf to add statistical analysis; combining Luo/Craw/Fricke with Comtois for footstep-related noise removal; combining Luo/Craw with Aceti to add a light guide; and combining Mault/Al-Ali with references like Lee (for API implementation), Behar (for statistical analysis), Han (for noise filtering), and Numaga (for a light guide).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "application-specific interface (API)": Petitioner argued this term was a typographical error and should be construed as the well-known term "application programming interface." The petition contended that "application-specific interface" had no common meaning in the art, whereas an "application programming interface" is a standard tool for software interaction, consistent with the patent's disclosure.
  • "the application": Petitioner noted that claim 4, which depended from claim 1, recited "the application" without any antecedent basis in claim 1. Petitioner argued this was a typographical error and that claim 4 should depend on claim 3, which recited "an application." For the purposes of the petition, the term was construed to mean "an application" accessible via an API.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 1-13 of Patent 8,923,941 and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.