Apple Inc v. AliveCor Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01173
• Patent #: 11,103,175
• Filed: June 23, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): AliveCor, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: MOBILE ECG SENSOR APPARATUS
• Brief Description: The ’175 patent discloses a mobile electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor apparatus. The device includes an electrode assembly to sense heart signals, a converter to create a modulated signal, and a transmitter to send the signal to a computing device, all contained within a compact housing, such as a credit card form factor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 1 is anticipated by and/or obvious over Libbus

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Libbus (Application # 2009/0234410A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Libbus discloses a mobile, wearable ECG sensor that meets every limitation of claim 1. Libbus's device includes an "electrode assembly" (comprising electrodes, "ECG Circuitry," and a "processor") that senses heart signals from a user's skin and produces corresponding electrical signals. It further includes "wireless communications circuitry" that functions as the claimed "converter assembly" and "transmitter." This circuitry is electrically connected to the ECG circuitry and is configured to convert the electrical signals into a modulated signal—explicitly mentioning amplitude modulation, frequency modulation, and Bluetooth—and then transmit it wirelessly to a remote computing device. Finally, Libbus discloses an "electronics housing" and "cover" that contain all the aforementioned components.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-13 are obvious over Libbus in view of Faarbaek

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Libbus (Application # 2009/0234410A1) and Faarbaek (Application # 2008/0275327A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Libbus teaches the core mobile ECG sensor, while Faarbaek supplies the teachings for a "credit card form factor" and other dependent claim features. Faarbaek discloses a similar mobile monitoring device with a "rectangular" housing and a thin profile (0.5 to 15 mm), which Petitioner contended is analogous to the claimed form factor. For dependent claim 10, which requires a display, Faarbaek teaches an "electromechanical display system" on the exterior surface of its device's housing. For claim 9, which requires a "mobile phone case form factor," Petitioner argued that combining Libbus with Faarbaek's convenient rectangular shape was a logical step toward this well-known form factor.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA designing a device like Libbus's would combine it with Faarbaek because both are directed to mobile physiological monitoring. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to modify Libbus’s device with Faarbaek’s rectangular, thin housing to achieve the stated goal in Faarbaek of a more "convenient and safe a device as possible." Similarly, adding a display as taught by Faarbaek would be motivated by the known benefit of providing real-time data feedback to the user.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success due to the significant technological overlap. Both devices use similar components (electrodes, processor, wireless circuitry) arranged on a printed circuit board within a polymer housing. Modifying the housing shape or adding a standard display were presented as predictable design choices with no unexpected results.

Ground 3: Claim 6 is obvious over Libbus in view of Faarbaek and Vyshedskiy

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Libbus (Application # 2009/0234410A1), Faarbaek (Application # 2008/0275327A1), and Vyshedskiy (Application # 2004/0220488A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Libbus/Faarbaek combination for the base ECG sensor. Claim 6 further requires the modulated signal to be a frequency modulated (FM) signal with a carrier frequency in the range of about 6 kHz to 20 kHz. While Libbus teaches using FM as a communication protocol, it does not specify a carrier frequency range. Vyshedskiy, which discloses transmitting ECG signals over an audio link to a computing device (e.g., a cell phone), was argued to fill this gap. Vyshedskiy teaches modulating ECG signals onto carrier frequencies and provides an exemplary list of eight frequencies, including 7.5 kHz, 10 kHz, 12.5 kHz, and 17.5 kHz, all squarely within the claimed range.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the FM protocol taught by Libbus would need to select a specific carrier frequency and would look to other art involving ECG signal transmission, like Vyshedskiy, for guidance on viable frequencies. A POSITA would be motivated to select a frequency from Vyshedskiy’s disclosed ranges to achieve optimal performance in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, a known advantage of FM over the AM also taught by Vyshedskiy.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as applying known, effective carrier frequencies from one ECG transmission system (Vyshedskiy) to another (the Libbus/Faarbaek device) was argued to be a routine and predictable implementation step for a person skilled in signal processing.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Libbus and Faarbaek with the Headset Profile Bluetooth Communication Standard to teach the headset profile limitation of claim 8, and combining Libbus (with or without Faarbaek) with Batkin (Application # 2005/0239493A1) to teach the "mobile phone case form factor" of claim 9.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 11,103,175 as unpatentable.