PTAB

IPR2017-00321

Apple Inc v. Valencell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Physiological Monitoring Device with Motion Artifact Reduction
  • Brief Description: The ’941 patent discloses a wearable physiological monitoring device, such as an earbud or headset, that uses photoplethysmography (PPG) to measure biological data like heart rate. The device integrates at least one PPG sensor and at least one motion sensor with a signal processor configured to reduce motion artifacts from the PPG signals, thereby improving measurement accuracy during user activity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 14, 15, and 21 are obvious over Kosuda in view of Maekawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kosuda (Application # 2004/0186387) and Maekawa (JP Patent App. Pub. No. 2005-270544).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kosuda, which discloses a wrist-worn pulse measurement device, teaches nearly all elements of independent claim 14. Kosuda’s device is wearable and includes a housing (watchcase), a chipset with a PPG sensor (pulse wave sensor), a motion sensor (triaxial accelerometer), and a signal processor configured to reduce motion artifacts. Kosuda also discloses a window (transparent glass) that optically exposes the sensor to the user’s wrist. The only element Petitioner contended was not explicitly taught by Kosuda is a "non-air light transmissive material" between the PPG sensor and the window.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Maekawa addresses the well-known problem of light noise interfering with PPG sensor readings. Maekawa teaches using a non-air light transmissive material (a bundle of optical fibers) between the sensor and window to block surface light noise and improve the signal-to-noise ratio. A POSITA would combine Maekawa’s established technique with Kosuda’s similar wrist-worn device to achieve the predictable result of improved signal quality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as this combination represented the application of a known noise-reduction solution to a known problem in a similar device.

Ground 2: Claims 14-19 and 21 are obvious over Aceti in view of Fricke.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aceti (Application # 2005/0059870) and Fricke (Application # 2009/0105556).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aceti discloses an ear-worn monitoring device that meets most limitations of claim 14, including being a wearable headset/earbud (claims 16-17) with a housing, PPG sensor (pulse oximetry sensor), motion sensor (accelerometer), a window (optically transparent elastomer), and a non-air light transmissive material (fiber optic cables). However, Petitioner contended Aceti does not explicitly teach that its signal processor is configured to use signals from the motion sensor to reduce motion artifacts from the PPG signal.
    • Motivation to Combine: Fricke, which also discloses an ear-worn PPG device, explicitly teaches configuring a processor to remove motion artifacts from a PPG signal using input from an associated motion sensor to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Motion artifacts were a well-known problem for wearable PPG sensors. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Aceti’s device by incorporating Fricke's known motion-reduction algorithm to improve the accuracy of its physiological measurements, a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying Fricke’s motion artifact reduction algorithm, which was specifically adapted for an ear-worn PPG sensor, to the similar ear-worn device of Aceti.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Claims 18-20 were challenged as obvious over Kosuda and Maekawa in view of Han (a 2007 IEEE article), arguing Han supplied known signal processing techniques (e.g., band-pass and adaptive filtering) for wearable sensors. Claim 20 was also challenged as obvious over Aceti and Fricke in view of Comtois (a 2007 IEEE article), arguing Comtois taught specific algorithms for removing footstep-related motion artifacts during jogging.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "headset" (claim 17): Petitioner proposed this term be broadly construed as "any type of device or earpiece that may be attached to or near the ear of a user," based on an explicit definition in the ’941 patent. This construction is important for establishing Aceti’s ear-worn device as relevant prior art.
  • "window" (claim 14): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an aperture or opening; the framework enclosing such an opening or aperture; a transmissive pane within such an aperture or opening." This broad construction, supported by the Petitioner's expert, allows the "transparent glass" in Kosuda and the "optically transparent elastomer" in Aceti to meet the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 14-21 of Patent 8,923,941 as unpatentable.