PTAB

IPR2018-00695

Apple Inc v. Valencell Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Physiological Monitoring Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’135 patent describes a wearable physiological monitoring device, such as a headset or earbud, that uses photoplethysmography (PPG). The technology centers on integrating a PPG sensor, a motion sensor, and a signal processor within a single electronic module to measure biological data while simultaneously processing signals to reduce motion artifacts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Ear-Worn Device - Claims 23-28, 30, and 31 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 taught a wearable, ear-worn monitoring device that disclosed nearly all limitations of independent claim 23. Aceti’s device included a housing, a PPG sensor (disclosed as a pulse oximetry sensor), a motion sensor (an accelerometer), and an electronic module containing these co-located components. Petitioner mapped Aceti’s fiber optic cables to the claimed "non-air light transmissive material" and its optically transparent elastomer tip to the "window" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that while Aceti included both a PPG sensor and a motion sensor, it did not explicitly teach using the motion sensor’s signals to reduce artifacts in the PPG signal. Motion artifacts were a well-known problem in the field of PPG sensors. Fricke specifically addressed this problem by teaching signal processing techniques, including band-pass filtering, to remove motion artifacts in an ear-worn PPG device. A POSITA would combine Fricke's motion-cancellation teachings with Aceti's device to improve the accuracy and reliability of its physiological measurements, a known method for improving such devices.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known signal processing solution (from Fricke) to a known problem (motion artifacts) in a similar device (Aceti's ear-worn sensor), which would predictably improve signal quality.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Wrist-Worn Device - Claims 23, 24, 30, and 31 are obvious over Kosuda in view of Maekawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kosuda (Application # 2004/0186387) and Maekawa (Japanese Application # 2005-270544).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kosuda, a wrist-worn pulse measurement device, taught a wearable device with a housing, a window (transparent glass), a PPG sensor (pulse wave sensor), a motion sensor (triaxial accelerometer), and a signal processor configured to reduce motion artifacts using the accelerometer data. Petitioner argued that Kosuda’s components were co-located in a watchcase and thus constituted the claimed "electronic module." The only element Petitioner argued Kosuda did not explicitly teach was a "non-air light transmissive material" between the sensor and the window.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that improving the signal-to-noise ratio by reducing light noise was a known goal for PPG sensors. Maekawa addressed this exact problem by teaching the use of optical fibers (a non-air light transmissive material) between the sensor and the device window to block surface-level light noise and guide only the more useful, deeper-penetrating light to the photodetector. A POSITA would combine Maekawa’s well-known technique with Kosuda’s similar wrist-worn device to solve this known problem and improve the device’s performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect this combination to succeed, as it amounted to applying a known optical noise reduction technique from one PPG device to another to achieve the predictable result of an improved signal-to-noise ratio.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 29 is obvious over Aceti, Fricke, and Comtois (a 2007 IEEE article), arguing Comtois provided the motivation to specifically remove footstep-related motion artifacts not explicitly addressed by Fricke. Petitioner also asserted that claims 27-29 are obvious over Kosuda, Maekawa, and Han (a 2007 IEEE article), arguing Han supplied specific teachings on using band-pass and adaptive filtering to reduce motion artifacts from walking and running in a wearable device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "electronic module": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "an assembly of co-located electronic components." This construction was highlighted as critical because the patent owner had distinguished prior art during prosecution by arguing its components were physically separate. Petitioner contended that co-locating the PPG sensor, motion sensor, and processor in a single module was a simple design choice that was well-known in the art and explicitly taught by references like Kosuda.
  • "window": Petitioner proposed a broad construction of "an aperture or opening; the framework enclosing such an opening or aperture; or a transmissive pane within such an aperture or opening." This allowed Petitioner to argue that elements like Kosuda’s transparent glass or the opening it sat in, and Aceti's transparent elastomer, met the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 23-31 of Patent 9,289,135 as unpatentable.