PTAB

IPR2017-01704

Apple Inc v. Valencell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Methods for Monitoring Physiological Data during Environmental Interference
  • Brief Description: The ’701 patent describes a wearable physiological monitoring apparatus, designed to be worn in the ear, that uses photoplethysmography (PPG) to measure biological data like heart rate. The apparatus includes a housing, a sensor module with an optical emitter and detector, and an optical filter intended to reduce interference from environmental light sources such as sunlight.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 14 are obvious over Ahmed in view of Kimura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahmed (Application # 2009/0281435) and Kimura (Patent 6,608,562).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ahmed taught a wearable PPG sensor for the ear (an audio headset) with an optical emitter and detector to measure heart rate. Ahmed also disclosed an accelerometer for sensing motion artifacts. However, for its headset embodiment, Ahmed did not explicitly show the sensor components mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB). Kimura taught a similar wearable PPG sensor where the emitter and detector were mounted side-by-side on a PCB. Critically, Kimura also addressed the known problem of ambient light interference by teaching the use of an optical filter (an IR-cut filter) placed over the light detector.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine these references to improve Ahmed's design. It would have been obvious to use the conventional PCB mounting technique from Kimura to integrate Ahmed’s sensor components, providing necessary physical support and electrical connection. A POSA would also have been motivated to add Kimura's optical filter to Ahmed's device to solve the well-known problem of ambient light corrupting PPG signals, thereby improving measurement accuracy.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known solutions (PCB mounting, optical filters) to a known problem (component integration and noise reduction) in a predictable field (wearable sensors). A POSA would have expected the combination to function as intended and yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of LeBoeuf.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahmed, Kimura, and LeBoeuf (Application # 2008/0146890).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Ahmed and Kimura combination to address claim 3, which recites an additional optical sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) attached to the second side of the PCB. While Ahmed disclosed an accelerometer, LeBoeuf specifically taught an optical accelerometer suitable for integration into an earpiece module.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have found it obvious to substitute the accelerometer in Ahmed with the optical accelerometer from LeBoeuf, as both performed the same function and LeBoeuf's was explicitly suited for an ear-worn device. Placing the sensor on the second side of the PCB would have been an obvious design choice to conserve limited space on the primary side, which already housed the emitter and detector.
    • Expectation of Success: This modification represented a predictable substitution of one known sensor type for another to achieve the same function in the same type of device, with the placement being a simple matter of efficient design.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 8, and 13 are obvious over Ahmed in view of Kimura and in further view of O'Neil.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahmed, Kimura, and O'Neil (Patent 6,748,254).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring lenses and diffusers. Claims 4 and 8 add lenses over the emitter and detector to focus light, and claim 13 adds a light-diffusing material. O'Neil taught an optical sensor that used lenses to enhance light coupling into and out of tissue and used optical diffusers to provide more uniform and accurate results by reducing sensitivity to tissue variations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine O'Neil's teachings with the Ahmed/Kimura sensor to improve performance. Adding lenses and diffusers were known techniques to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and accuracy of optical sensors, which would have been a clear goal for the designer of Ahmed's device.
    • Expectation of Success: Because O'Neil's techniques were designed for small, wearable optical sensors, a POSA would have expected them to work predictably to enhance the performance of the similar Ahmed/Kimura sensor combination.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including:

    • Claims 9-12 over Ahmed, Kimura, and Klinghult (Application # 2009/0010461) for teaching soft, deformable earbud materials that facilitate retention.
    • Claim 7 over Ahmed, Kimura, and Uenishi (Application # 2007/0135717) for teaching a lens that matingly engages with apertures in a light-opaque material.
    • Claim 15 over Ahmed, Kimura, and Woehrle (Patent 5,846,190) for teaching a digital filter that processes digitized signals to remove time-varying ambient light interference.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "optical filter": This term was central to the petition. Petitioner argued that the patent used the term inconsistently. For claim 1, it aligned with the ordinary meaning of a physical component that blocks certain wavelengths of light. However, for claim 15, the filter is recited as processing "digitized ... signals." Petitioner contended that this requires a broader construction for claim 15, encompassing electronic or digital signal filters, as physical optical filters do not process digital signals.
  • "housing": Petitioner proposed the construction "one or more parts that covers, encloses, supports, or protects; casing," arguing it is not limited to a single earbud but could include multiple components like the earbuds and harness in Ahmed.
  • "within an ear": Petitioner argued this phrase should be understood to mean that only a portion of the housing needs to be positioned within the concha depression of the ear, not that the entire apparatus must be contained within the ear.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,888,701 as unpatentable.