PTAB

IPR2025-01584

Whoop Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Measurement System
  • Brief Description: The ’304 patent relates to an optical measurement system, such as a wearable device, for measuring physiological parameters. The system uses a light source with multiple semiconductors to direct an optical beam at a sample, a receiver to capture the reflected or transmitted light, and processing circuitry to generate an output signal for transmission to a remote device like a smartphone or tablet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson - Claims 1, 11, 19-20, and 25 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 argued that Lisogurski taught a portable, wearable physiological monitoring system using multiple LEDs to measure parameters like oxygen saturation. Lisogurski disclosed key features such as modulating light intensity to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), using a "dark subtraction" technique to remove ambient noise, and wirelessly communicating with a remote monitor like a smartphone. Carlson was argued to teach a similar wearable pulse oximeter that also focused on increasing SNR, particularly in environments with changing ambient light.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lisogurski and Carlson because both references concern analogous miniaturized, wireless pulse oximetry devices and share the objective of improving performance, utility, and power consumption. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA seeking to enhance the SNR of Lisogurski's system would have been motivated to incorporate the complementary techniques taught by Carlson.
    • Expectation of Success: An expectation of success existed because the proposed modifications were described as routine. Implementing Carlson's techniques for improving SNR (e.g., beam shaping, modulation) into Lisogurski’s analogous system was presented as a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a known goal.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Soller - Claims 4-8, 10, 15-18, and 21-24 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Soller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Soller (Patent 6,304,767).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Building on the base combination, Petitioner introduced Soller to teach specific structural arrangements of optical components. Soller allegedly disclosed a measurement system with LEDs and detectors arranged in separate, concentric, and offset rings or "arcs" to maximize the accuracy of the measurement by optimizing light delivery and collection. Petitioner mapped Soller’s teachings to the challenged claims’ limitations requiring a "first arc" of detectors and a "second arc" of semiconductor sources.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to improve the accuracy of the Lisogurski device would have been motivated to consult references like Soller for optimal sensor configurations. Petitioner argued that incorporating Soller's specific concentric arc layout for the LEDs and detectors into Lisogurski’s more generalized multi-component sensor was a straightforward design choice to improve performance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as arranging optical components to improve signal capture was a well-understood design principle.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Tran - Claims 12-13 and 26 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Tran.

  • 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: Petitioner relied on Tran to teach advanced data processing capabilities. Tran disclosed a heart monitoring system that used "artificial neural networks" to analyze physiological data (including pulse oximetry data). This analysis was used to perform "pattern identification or classification" and "make decisions" by flagging potentially dangerous health conditions. These teachings were mapped to claim limitations requiring the use of "artificial intelligence in making decisions" and applying threshold functions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tran's teachings to add more advanced analytical features to the data collected by the Lisogurski device. Because Tran taught using AI to analyze the exact type of data generated by Lisogurski, its data analysis techniques were presented as a natural and obvious enhancement for remote patient monitoring.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that implementing Tran's known data analysis algorithms into the Lisogurski system's processing backend was a routine modification with a high expectation of success, as it involved applying known software techniques to compatible data.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Lisogurski and Carlson with Debreczeny (for spatial coupling of sources), Valencell-093 (for use of a reflective surface), and a combination of Soller and Tran, but these relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition argued that no special constructions were necessary but noted a relevant construction from a prior inter partes review (IPR) involving a related patent. The Board previously construed "identify an object" to mean "to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing." Petitioner applied this prior construction to the similar term "identification of an object" found in the challenged claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued strongly against discretionary denial and asserted that collateral estoppel should apply. The petition contended that the challenged claims are materially similar or identical to claims in parent patents (’533 and ’484 patents) that the Board previously found unpatentable in prior IPRs. It was argued that instituting review would be an efficient use of Board resources, as the patent owner was allegedly attempting to re-litigate the patentability of previously invalidated subject matter.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-27 of the ’304 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.