PTAB

PGR2026-00003

Whoop Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Device for Physiological Monitoring
  • Brief Description: The ’790 patent discloses a wearable optical system, adapted for the wrist, that measures physiological parameters. The system uses a light source with near-infrared semiconductor diodes and a detection system to analyze light reflected from a user's skin tissue to determine these parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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: Petitioner argued that this combination discloses all limitations of claim 7. Lisogurski, a primary reference, taught a wearable physiological monitoring system using LEDs (including infrared) to measure parameters like blood oxygen saturation. It disclosed a wrist-wearable sensor, multiple detectors, and methods for increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), such as synchronizing the detector with the light source and using a "dark subtraction" technique. Petitioner contended that Lisogurski taught or suggested all elements of claim 7, with the potential exception of an explicit lens system for focusing light. The addition of Carlson's teachings of using a "beam shaping optical element," such as a lens, to improve the SNR and power efficiency of a wearable pulse oximeter rendered this limitation obvious. Petitioner emphasized that the Board, in prior IPRs against related patents, had already found materially identical claims unpatentable over this same combination, a finding affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Lisogurski and Carlson because both addressed improving the performance and power consumption of portable, wearable optical sensors for physiological monitoring. A POSITA seeking to improve Lisogurski's system, which already focused on SNR and portability, would have naturally looked to Carlson's complementary techniques for improving SNR in analogous pulse oximetry devices. Adding a lens, as taught by Carlson, to focus light was a well-known "building block" in optical systems to improve efficiency, a shared goal of both references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as incorporating a lens into an LED-based sensor was a routine modification within the ordinary skill of the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Lamego - Claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Lamego.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Lamego (Application # 2011/0237911).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson from Ground 1 and added Lamego to address the final limitation of claim 7, "wherein the wearable device is at least in part configured to identify an object." Petitioner argued that if the Board found the primary combination did not teach this limitation, Lamego supplied the missing element. Lamego disclosed a multi-wavelength physiological monitor capable of identifying and measuring various blood constituents (e.g., methemoglobin, carboxyhemoglobin) to improve the accuracy of blood oxygen saturation readings. By using multiple wavelengths to distinguish between spectrally similar materials, Lamego's system "identifies" these constituents as distinct objects, thereby teaching the disputed limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Lisogurski and Carlson to create an efficient wearable sensor, would be motivated to incorporate Lamego's teachings to improve measurement accuracy. Both Lisogurski and Lamego sought to address inaccuracies caused by variations in blood constituents. A POSITA would look to Lamego's multi-wavelength technique as a known solution for improving the accuracy of the Lisogurski-based system by compensating for interfering substances in the blood.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as using multiple LED light sources at different wavelengths to determine levels of blood constituents was a well-known technique.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Soller - Claim 7 is 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: Similar to Ground 2, this ground added a reference, Soller, to the primary combination to address the "identify an object" limitation. Soller described a non-invasive optical method for measuring hematocrit by quantifying multiple components of red blood cells, including various forms of hemoglobin and other cellular components. Soller taught using a large set of wavelengths and multivariate calibration techniques (e.g., Partial Least Squares fitting algorithms) to create a mathematical model that could "identify" and quantify these various constituents from optical spectra. This use of statistical and spectral methods to recognize the various constituents of hematocrit met the "identify an object" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Soller's advanced analytical techniques into the Lisogurski/Carlson system to further enhance measurement accuracy. Soller explicitly taught that using a larger set of wavelengths compensates for variations in blood volume and accounts for more factors, yielding a more accurate measurement. This directly aligned with the goal of creating a robust physiological monitor.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been routine, as implementing different light source configurations and applying known mathematical and statistical analysis techniques to optical sensor data was within the ordinary skill of the art.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 7 is also unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112 for indefiniteness and lack of enablement, based on the Patent Owner's proposed construction of the term "identify an object" in related proceedings.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "to identify an object": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing," consistent with the Board's construction in a prior IPR involving a related patent, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Petitioner asserted that under this construction, measuring blood oxygen saturation (which requires distinguishing oxyhemoglobin from deoxyhemoglobin) meets the limitation. However, Petitioner's alternative grounds (Grounds 2 and 3) were presented to overcome the Patent Owner's narrower interpretation, which allegedly requires distinguishing multiple, different blood constituents (like glucose, lactate, etc.) from one another.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Post Grant Review and cancellation of claim 7 of the ’790 patent as unpatentable.