PTAB

PGR2025-00064

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Physiological Measurement System
  • Brief Description: The ’790 patent relates to a wearable optical system for measuring physiological parameters. The system uses a light source with semiconductor diodes to illuminate a user's tissue and a detection system to analyze the reflected light to determine physiological data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner asserted that the vast majority of the limitations in challenged claim 7 are identical or substantially identical to limitations the Board already found unpatentable in prior Final Written Decisions (FWDs) involving related patents (the ’533-IPR and ’484-IPR). Petitioner argued that collateral estoppel should apply to these limitations.

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lisogurski - Claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lisogurski, which discloses a physiological monitoring system with a sensor and a separate monitor, teaches all limitations of claim 7. The sensor part can be worn on a user's wrist and uses multiple LEDs, including near-infrared LEDs, to measure physiological parameters like blood oxygen saturation. Lisogurski’s system also includes spatially separated detectors, an analog-to-digital converter, and techniques to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), such as increasing light intensity and using a dark subtraction process (measuring ambient light while LEDs are off and subtracting it from the signal when LEDs are on).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to modify Lisogurski’s system by integrating the processing circuitry (control, light drive, front-end) from the separate monitor unit into the sensor unit itself. This motivation stems from Lisogurski’s own disclosure that components can be combined into a single unit and from strong industry trends toward miniaturization and creating self-contained wearable devices for fitness and health monitoring.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in integrating known circuitry into a sensor, as this was a common and well-understood engineering challenge with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson - Claim 7 is 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: This ground built upon the teachings of Lisogurski and added Carlson to explicitly teach the "one or more lenses" limitation ([7.d]). Lisogurski provided the base wearable physiological monitoring system. Carlson, which discloses an optical pulse oximetry device, taught using lenses as beam-shaping elements to guide light from LEDs into a patient's tissue. This focusing of light increased the optical signal power and improved the SNR.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to improve the performance of Lisogurski's battery-powered wireless sensor would combine it with Carlson's lens teachings. Incorporating lenses would increase the optical signal power without increasing actual power consumption, thereby improving the device's efficiency and SNR, a key objective taught in Lisogurski.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): As both references are in the same field of optical physiological monitoring and using lenses to focus light is a basic principle, a POSITA would have found it routine to apply Carlson's lenses to Lisogurski's system with a high degree of confidence.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "to identify an object" ([7.m]): Petitioner noted that in a prior FWD for a related patent ('484-FWD), the Board construed this term to mean "to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing." Petitioner argued that Lisogurski met this construction because its system calculates the amount of a blood constituent (e.g., oxyhemoglobin), which involves distinguishing and identifying that specific constituent in the blood.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under either 35 U.S.C. §325(d) or §324(a).

  • Arguments against §325(d) Denial (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner asserted that the grounds raised were not the same or substantially the same as those considered during prosecution, as the Examiner never substantively considered Lisogurski or Carlson. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that even if the art was considered, the Examiner materially erred by allowing claim 7 when the Board had already found substantially identical claims in related patents unpatentable over the same prior art references in the ’533-IPR and ’484-IPR.

  • Arguments against §324(a) Denial (Fintiv): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors weighed strongly in favor of institution. A parallel district court case is in its early stages, with a Markman hearing not scheduled until February 2026, and Petitioners intended to seek a stay. Petitioners also stipulated that if the Post Grant Review (PGR) is instituted, they would not pursue the same grounds in the district court. Finally, since the ’790 patent issued recently, the Patent Owner had not developed settled expectations regarding its validity.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of PGR and cancellation of claim 7 of the ’790 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.