PTAB

IPR2025-01583

Whoop Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Optical Measurement Device
  • Brief Description: The ’533 patent is directed to a wearable optical sensor system that measures physiological parameters, such as pulse rate and oxygen saturation. The system uses light emitting diodes (LEDs) to transmit light into a user's tissue, and a receiver processes the reflected or transmitted light to generate health data, which can be sent to a remote device like a smartphone.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson - Claims 11, 12, and 18 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 the base claims on which the challenged claims depend (claims 5 and 13) were already found unpatentable over this same combination in a prior inter partes review (IPR). Lisogurski taught a portable, wearable physiological monitoring system using LEDs and photodetectors. The additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims were taught by Carlson. For claims 11 and 18, which require "one or more filters in front of one or more detectors," Carlson taught a pulse oximeter sensor with a filter placed before a photo-detecting element to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). For claim 12, which requires comparing signals at different optical wavelengths, Lisogurski itself taught comparing red and infrared wavelengths to determine blood oxygen saturation, a fundamental principle of pulse oximetry.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Carlson's teachings with Lisogurski's system because both references concern miniaturized, wireless pulse oximetry and share the objective of improving signal quality and power efficiency. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Carlson’s known filtering techniques into Lisogurski’s sensor to improve its performance, a predictable and routine design modification.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as using optical filters to reduce unwanted signals and improve SNR was a well-known and conventional technique in optical sensor design.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Walker - Claims 6 and 14 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Walker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Walker (Patent 6,144,867).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims 6 and 14, which add the limitation that at least one LED "emits light with a bandwidth between 20 nanometers to 40 nanometers." Petitioner argued that while Lisogurski and Carlson provided the base system, Walker explicitly taught this limitation. Walker described a wearable pulse oximeter sensor for active users that may emit light "having a bandwidth in the range of 20 to 50 nm," directly overlapping with the claimed range.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of all three references as they are all analogous art directed at improving wearable pulse oximeters. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the specific LED bandwidths taught by Walker into the Lisogurski/Carlson system to achieve a more accurate and versatile sensor suitable for monitoring highly mobile individuals, aligning with known market trends toward miniaturized and robust health monitors.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as it involved selecting conventional LEDs with known, specified bandwidths to implement into a known sensor architecture.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Tam - Claims 6 and 14 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Tam.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Tam (Patent 7,029,628).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Ground 2, this ground substituted Walker with Tam to teach the 20-40 nm LED bandwidth limitation for claims 6 and 14. Tam taught a portable oximeter using "readily available" LEDs with bandwidths that "approach 30-50 nm when entering the red to near infrared range" and provided graphical data showing LEDs with theoretical bandwidths of 40 nm.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the portability and accuracy of Lisogurski's system. Tam explicitly focused on designing a portable oximeter and taught that its LEDs were "typical" and "readily available." A POSITA would be motivated to use such standard components to achieve the known goal of creating a smaller, more efficient wearable device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because implementing Tam's readily available, standard-bandwidth LEDs into the Lisogurski sensor would be a straightforward design choice with predictable outcomes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: beam
  • Proposed Construction: "photons or light transmitted to a particular location in space."
  • Petitioner's Rationale: Petitioner argued this construction should be adopted because it is an express definition provided in the ’533 patent's specification, making the patentee its own lexicographer. This definition was also consistent with other intrinsic evidence that distinguished a directed "beam" from randomly scattered "stray light."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial because instituting the IPR would be an efficient use of Board resources. The petition highlighted the significant overlap between the challenged claims and claims from the same patent that the Board had already found unpatentable in a prior, affirmed IPR. Petitioner also argued that the Patent Owner was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the patentability of limitations in claim 12, which it contended were essentially identical to those previously invalidated based on the same prior art.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 6, 11-12, 14, and 18 of the ’533 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.