PTAB

IPR2021-00453

Apple Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Title: System for measuring physiological parameters.
Brief Description: The ’484 patent describes a system for measuring physiological parameters using a wearable optical sensor. The technology, known as photoplethysmography (PPG), involves a device with light sources (LEDs) and detectors that is placed on a user's wrist or ear to measure properties like blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate based on light reflected from the user's tissue.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676) and Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lisogurski taught a portable physiological monitoring system using a wearable optical sensor (e.g., on a wrist or ear) with multiple LEDs to measure pulse rate and oxygen saturation. While Lisogurski disclosed the core components, Petitioner contended it did not explicitly teach using lenses. Carlson, however, taught using lenses in a similar wearable pulse oximeter to direct light into tissue, which improved the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing Lisogurski's system, which aimed to improve power efficiency and SNR, would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson's teachings. Carlson directly addressed improving the performance of analogous pulsoximetry devices by using lenses, a known and fundamental optical component, to increase optical signal power.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding lenses, a basic building block of optical sensors, into Lisogurski’s system to achieve the predictable benefit of improved signal measurement efficiency.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Tran (Patent 8,108,036).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1, adding Tran to teach limitations related to artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of a smartphone. Tran disclosed a heart monitoring system where a wearable sensor communicates with a smartphone and sends data to a server for analysis using artificial neural networks. This AI was used to classify risks (e.g., stroke, heart attack) and provide warnings, mapping directly to claims reciting "artificial intelligence," "pattern identification or classification," and "pattern matching algorithm."
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tran with the Lisogurski/Carlson system to enhance its data analysis capabilities. Given the market trends toward integrating wearable sensors with smartphones and cloud services for advanced health tracking, it would have been an obvious improvement to add Tran's AI-based analysis to provide predictive health warnings.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), Tran (Patent 8,108,036), and Isaacson (Patent 8,725,226).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring specific spatial arrangements of emitters and detectors. While Lisogurski mentioned using multiple detectors, it lacked specific guidance on their placement. Isaacson taught arranging multiple emitters and detectors at different, specified distances from each other to measure light that has penetrated different tissue depths. This configuration allowed for the exclusion of signal interference from surface tissue layers, a problem acknowledged in Lisogurski.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to improve the accuracy of the Lisogurski system, particularly to address signal interference from factors like skin pigmentation, would have been motivated to incorporate Isaacson's specific sensor geometry. Isaacson explicitly taught its sensor arrangement to solve this known problem in the art.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 6, 14, and 23 based on the primary combination further in view of Valencell-093 (Application # 2012/0197093), which taught adding a reflective surface to improve signal coupling and SNR.

"Lens": Petitioner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with dictionary definitions and the patent's disclosure, is one or more transparent surfaces used to collimate or focus light. This construction is met by prior art showing conventional LEDs with encapsulants shaped to focus light.
"Optical Light": Petitioner asserted this term was expressly defined in the specification as "photons or light transmitted to a particular location in space" and should be construed as such.
"Cloud": Petitioner proposed the plain and ordinary meaning: a remote device or network of devices hosted on a network and used to store, manage, or process data.

Petitioner argued that the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) because, although some references were in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, the Examiner’s review was merely cursory. The lack of any mention of these references in the notice of allowability demonstrated they were not substantively considered, and the Board had previously found claims in a parent patent obvious over the same core references (Lisogurski and Carlson).
Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. It was noted that the parallel district court litigation was stayed pending an appeal on the Patent Owner's standing, no significant discovery had occurred, and no trial date was set.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’484 patent as unpatentable.