ResMed Corp v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00157](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157)
- Patent #: [11,602,284](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/11602284)
- Filed: November 15, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [ResMed Corp](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/resmed-corp).
- Patent Owner(s): [Cleveland Medical Devices](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cleveland-medical-devices-inc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-3, 6, and 12-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Positive Airway Pressure Sleep Disorder Treatment System
- Brief Description: [The ’284 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1001) discloses a networked Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) treatment system. The system comprises a PAP device that calculates patient usage and symptom severity data, a cell phone with software to display an index of treatment efficacy, and a remote internet site to receive and store the data.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6, 12-15, 18-19 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) (Patent 6,644,311), [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) (Application # 2002/0198473).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) taught all elements of a conventional PAP device as recited in [the ’284 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1001), including a blower, airflow sensor, and a processor for calculating data related to patient usage (compliance) and symptom severity (e.g., detecting apneas and hypopneas). Petitioner contended that [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) taught the networking and telemedicine components missing from [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007). Specifically, [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) disclosed a system for remotely monitoring physiological data where a patient-side device connects to a computing device (e.g., a "wireless telephone" or IPAQ) which in turn communicates with a remote, browser-based engine ("remote internet site"). [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008)’s computing device could download a software plug-in to display data, and it included a wireless transceiver.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007)'s PAP device with [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008)'s telemedicine network to gain known benefits. These included obtaining more representative data from the patient's home environment, improving convenience for patients and physicians by reducing in-person visits, expanding healthcare access to remote locations, and following the clear market trend of connecting consumer devices to the internet.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) expressly taught that "virtually any device may be easily incorporated into the system," including devices for treating sleep apnea. The combination was a predictable application of known technologies (a PAP device and a telemedicine network) to achieve a predictable result (remote monitoring of PAP therapy).

#### Ground 2: Claims 15, 16, and 18 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Dong.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) (Patent 6,644,311), [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) (Application # 2002/0198473), [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014) (Patent 5,424,942).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built upon the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) and [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) combination from Ground 1. For the limitations in claims 15 and 18 requiring an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive controller," Petitioner argued that [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014) supplied this teaching. [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014) disclosed an "extended horizon adaptive block predictive controller" designed to improve performance in complex systems.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA, having already combined [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) and [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008), would have been motivated to incorporate [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014)'s advanced controller to improve the performance and responsiveness of the PAP therapy. [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014)'s controller specifically addressed limitations of existing adaptive controllers, such as computational complexity, making it a suitable and known design choice for improving the system.
    - **Expectation of Success:** As neither [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) nor [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) specified a particular type of controller, selecting a known, improved controller like [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1014)'s would have been a predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

#### Ground 3: Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Wright.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) (Patent 6,644,311), [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) (Application # 2002/0198473), [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013) (Application # 2002/0185130).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground also built upon the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) and [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) combination. To meet the limitations of claims 17 and 20, which require the system to "distinguish between and calculate the severity of both obstructive apneas and central apneas," Petitioner relied on [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013). [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013) explicitly taught that its CPAP device could "detect the presence of apneas, distinguish between central and obstructive apneas," and apply different treatment protocols for each type.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013)'s teachings to enhance patient comfort and treatment efficacy. Since central apnea is caused by the nervous system and not a physical obstruction, applying the same pressure increase used for obstructive apnea is unnecessary and can cause discomfort. [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013) provided a known solution to differentiate apnea types and tailor the therapy accordingly.
    - **Expectation of Success:** [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013) and [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) are analogous art describing CPAP systems. Implementing [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1013)'s known logic for distinguishing apnea types into the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007)-[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) system would have been a simple programming modification with predictable results.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 4-6) based on the combinations of Grounds 1-3 in further view of [Mumford](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1009) (Patent 7,575,005). [Mumford](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1009) was introduced to teach, if not already present in the primary combinations, the explicit calculation of an "index of treatment efficacy" based on compliance and sleep quality data, using a "sleep efficacy control algorithm" to generate a "test score."

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that the Board should reach the merits and not issue a discretionary denial.
- **No Denial Under §325(d):** Petitioner contended that denial is inappropriate because the core prior art combination of [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1007) and [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1008) was never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
- **No Denial Under *General Plastic*:** Petitioner asserted that although it previously filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for [the ’284 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00157/doc/1001), the Board denied institution on procedural grounds (finding the patent to be pre-AIA) and never reached the merits of the invalidity arguments.
- **No Denial Under *Fintiv*:** Petitioner stated that there is currently no trial scheduled in the parallel district court litigation, making the *Fintiv* factors for discretionary denial inapplicable and weighing against denial.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 6, and 12-20 of Patent [11,602,284](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/11602284) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

ResMed targets sleep apnea monitoring patent: Truitt & Kumar art cited for 12 claims as obvious over combining a PAP device with a telemedicine network.