PTAB

IPR2019-00916

Apple Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Optical Measurement System
  • Brief Description: The ’533 patent discloses a health monitoring system using optical sensors to measure a user's physiological parameters. The system comprises a wearable device with a light source (e.g., LEDs), lenses, and a receiver that uses photoplethysmography (PPG) to analyze light interaction with tissue, and which wirelessly communicates processed data to personal and remote devices for further processing and storage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson

Claims 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676) and Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lisogurski teaches a portable physiological monitoring system that discloses nearly all elements of the challenged claims, including a wearable optical sensor, a monitor (personal device), and remote servers. Lisogurski’s system uses multiple LEDs (including near-infrared) to measure physiological parameters, a receiver synchronized to the light source, and wirelessly communicates data. Petitioner argued that to the extent Lisogurski does not explicitly disclose using a "plurality of lenses" or increasing the "pulse rate" of LEDs to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), Carlson remedies these distinctions. Carlson, which addresses the same technical problems of improving wearable pulse oximeters, explicitly teaches using lenses to focus light and increase optical signal power and pulsing LEDs at a higher frequency to improve the SNR by avoiding ambient light interference.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine these references. Lisogurski and Carlson are in the same field of wearable physiological monitors and share the common goal of improving signal quality and power efficiency. Petitioner argued a POSITA seeking to improve the Lisogurski system would naturally look to analogous art like Carlson for known techniques to enhance SNR and optical performance, particularly since Lisogurski itself identifies ambient light and noise as problems. Prevailing industry trends toward more robust and integrated mobile health devices would have further motivated this combination.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Incorporating lenses, which are "basic building blocks" of optical sensors, and adjusting the LED pulse rate are well-understood techniques. Implementing Carlson’s specific solutions for improving SNR into Lisogurski’s analogous system would have involved a predictable application of known principles to achieve the expected improvement in signal quality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer

Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are obvious over the combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Mannheimer (Patent 5,746,206).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon Ground 1 and specifically addresses dependent claims 8, 9, 16, and 17. These claims add limitations requiring the receiver to be located at different distances from at least two different LEDs and generating an output signal by comparing the signals from these LEDs. While Lisogurski teaches that its emitters and detectors may be "spaced apart," Petitioner argued that Mannheimer explicitly teaches the claimed configuration. Mannheimer discloses a pulse oximetry sensor with multiple emitters spaced at different distances from a single detector to obtain measurements from different tissue depths (e.g., shallow and deep). This configuration allows the system to remove noise from surface tissue reflections by comparing the signals.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Lisogurski and Carlson, would be motivated to incorporate Mannheimer’s teachings to further improve the system's accuracy. Lisogurski recognizes that signal quality can be degraded by factors like skin pigmentation. Mannheimer directly addresses this type of problem by teaching a specific spatial arrangement of emitters that can filter out surface-level noise. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of applying Mannheimer's noise-cancellation technique to the wearable sensor of Lisogurski to create a more robust and reliable device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable. The spatial arrangement of LEDs and detectors is a known design parameter in optical sensing. Implementing Mannheimer's specific, well-defined arrangement into the Lisogurski/Carlson system to improve noise rejection would have been a straightforward design choice with predictable, beneficial results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "beam": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "photons or light transmitted to a particular location in space," consistent with the patent's express definition. This construction distinguishes directed light from stray or randomly scattered light.
  • "plurality of lenses": Petitioner proposed this term means "two or more transparent surfaces used to collimate (make parallel) or focus rays of light." This construction is based on the functional descriptions in the patent and standard dictionary definitions.
  • "pulse rate": The parties in related district court litigation agreed this term means "number of pulses of light per unit of time," a construction Petitioner adopted for the IPR. Petitioner asserted that even under these narrow constructions, the prior art renders the claims obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 of the ’533 patent as unpatentable.