Omni MedSci, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2020

IPR2019-00916 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 39
571-272-7822 Date: October 14, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2
____________

Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge HORVATH

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
of claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
No. 9,651,533 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’533 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 3. Omni
MedSci Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10
(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
Response, we instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims on all
grounds raised. Paper 16 (“Dec. Inst.”).
Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (Paper 23, “PO Resp.”),
Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 28, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
Sur-Reply (Paper 32, “PO Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on July
16, 2020, and the hearing transcript is included in the record. See Paper 37
(“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is a Final Written
Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons
set forth below, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
evidence that claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 of the ’533 patent are
unpatentable.
B. Related Matters
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following as matters that can
affect or be affected by this proceeding: pending U.S. Patent Application
Nos. 10/188,299, 10/172,523, 15/594,053, 16/015,737, and 16/241,628;
Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci Inc., IPR2019-00913 (PTAB); and Omni MedSci
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

3
Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2-18-cv-00134-RWD (E.D. Tex.).1 See Pet. x; Paper 7, 1–
2.
C. Evidence Relied Upon2
Reference Date Exhibit
Mannheimer U.S. 5,746,206 May 5, 1998 1008
Carlson U.S. 2005/0049468 A1 Mar. 3, 2005 1009
Lisogurski U.S. 9,241,676 B2 May 31, 20123 1011

D. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
Claims Challenged Basis References
5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 § 103(a) Lisogurski and Carlson
8, 9, 16, and 17 § 103(a) Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer
II. ANALYSIS
A. The ’533 Patent
The ’533 patent was filed on October 6, 2015, and claims priority to a
utility application filed on December 17, 2013, and a provisional application
filed on December 31, 2012. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63), 1:10–14. The
’533 patent is directed toward a wearable physiological measurement

1 This case was transferred to the Northern District of California. See Paper
11, 1; Paper 13, 1; Ex. 1058, 9.
2 Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Brian Anthony, Ph.D.,
(Ex. 1003).
3 Petitioner relies on the filing date of Lisogurski to establish its status as
prior art. See Pet. 21.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

4
system. Id. code (57). The system is depicted in Figure 24 of the ’533
patent, which is reproduced below.

Figure 24 is a schematic illustration of a physiological measurement system
that includes wearable measurement device 2401, personal device 2405, and
cloud based server 2407. Id. at 7:7–10, 26:49–27:20.
The “wearable measurement device [is] for measuring one or more
physiological parameters.” Id. at 5:35–37. A schematic illustration of such
a device is shown in Figure 18 of the ’533 patent, which is reproduced
below.

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

5

Figure 18 is a schematic diagram of a wearable physiological measurement
device to “subtract out (or at least minimize the adverse effects of) light
source fluctuations.” Id. at 18:43–46. The device includes light source 1801
made from a plurality of light emitting diodes that output an optical beam at
one or more wavelengths, including at least one wavelength between 700
and 2500 nanometers. Id. at 5:37–43, 18:46–48. The device includes a
plurality of lenses that receive a portion of the output optical beam from the
light source and deliver an analysis beam to a sample. Id. at 5:47–50,
18:46–55. The device includes a receiver that receives at least a portion of
the analysis beam that has been reflected from or transmitted through the
sample, and processes that signal to generate an output signal. Id. at 5:51–
54, 18:55–59.
Light source 1801 “is configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio by
increasing a light intensity from at least one of the plurality of semi-
conductor sources [e.g., LEDs] and by increasing a pulse rate of at least one
of the plurality of semiconductor sources.” Id. at 5:43–47. For example,
light source 1801 can be “an active illuminator” that allows “higher signal-
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

6
to-noise ratios [to] be achieved.” Id. at 16:54–58. This can be done, for
example, “us[ing] modulation and lock-in techniques” in which the “light
source may be modulated, and then the detection system [is] synchronized
with the light source.” Id. at 16:58–62. “[N]arrow band filtering around the
modulation frequency may be used to reject noise outside the modulation
frequency.” Id. at 16:64–65.
The physiological measurement system also includes personal device
2405 having a wireless receiver, a wireless transmitter, a display, a
microphone, a speaker, one or more buttons or knobs, a microprocessor and
a touch screen. Id. at 5:54–59, 27:3–7. Personal device 2405 receives and
processes at least a portion of the output signal generated by wearable
measurement device 2401, and stores and displays the processed output
signal. Id. at 5:59–61, 27:10–12. Personal device 2405 also transmits at
least a portion of the processed output signal over a wireless transmission
link to a remote device such as an internet or “cloud” based server. Id. at
5:61–63, 26:30–34, 27:12–15. Personal device 2405 can be “a smart phone,
tablet, cell phone, PDA, or computer,” or some “other microprocessor-based
device.” Id. at 26:37–40, 26:49–55.
The physiological measurement system also includes remote device
2407 that receives the portion of the processed output signal transmitted by
personal device 2405 as an output status. Id. at 5:63–66, 26:30–42, 27:12–
15. Remote device 2407 processes the output status to generate and store
processed data, and stores a history of the output status over a period of
time. Id. at 5:66–6:1–3, 27:21–29, 27:34–37.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

7
B. Illustrative Claim
Claim 13 of the ’533 patent is an independent and representative
claim, and is reproduced below.
13. A measurement system comprising:
a wearable measurement device for measuring one
or more physiological parameters, including a light
source comprising a plurality of semiconductor
sources that are light emitting diodes, the light
emitting diodes configured to generate an output
optical beam with one or more optical
wavelengths, wherein at least a portion of the one
or more optical wavelengths is a near-infrared
wavelength between 700 nanometers and 2500
nanometers,
the light source configured to increase signal-to-
noise ratio by increasing a light intensity from at
least one of the plurality of semiconductor sources
and by increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the
plurality of semiconductor sources;
the wearable measurement device comprising a
plurality of lenses configured to receive a portion
of the output optical beam and to deliver an
analysis output beam to a sample;
the wearable measurement device further
comprising a receiver configured to receive and
process at least a portion of the analysis output
beam reflected or transmitted from the sample and
to generate an output signal, wherein the wearable
measurement device receiver is configured to be
synchronized to pulses of the light source;
a personal device comprising a wireless receiver, a
wireless transmitter, a display, a microphone, a
speaker, one or more buttons or knobs, a
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

8
microprocessor and a touch screen, the personal
device configured to receive and process at least a
portion of the output signal, wherein the personal
device is configured to store and display the
processed output signal, and wherein at least a
portion of the processed output signal is
configured to be transmitted over a wireless
transmission link; and
a remote device configured to receive over the
wireless transmission link an output status
comprising the at least a portion of the processed
output signal, to process the received output status
to generate processed data and to store the
processed data and wherein the remote device is
capable of storing a history of at least a portion of
the received output status over a specified period
of time.
Ex. 1001, 30:46–31:20.
Claim 5 is an independent claim that recites a measurement system
that is substantially similar to the measurement system recited in claim 13,
except that claim 5 is broader because it does not require (a) the light source,
plurality of lenses, and receiver to be components of a wearable
measurement device, (b) measurement of one or more physiological
parameters, or (c) the remote device to be capable of storing a history of at
least a portion of the received output status over a specified period of time.
Compare id. at 29:43–30:10, with id. at 30:46–31:20. Claims 7–10 depend
from claim 5, and claims 15–17 depend from claim 13. Id. at 30:15–37,
32:1–18.
C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Anthony, identifies a
person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as someone who “would have
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

9
[had] a good working knowledge of optical sensing techniques and their
applications, and familiarity with optical system design and signal
processing techniques.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Such a person would have
obtained such knowledge through “an undergraduate education in
engineering (electrical, mechanical, biomedical, or optical) or a related field
of study, along with relevant experience studying or developing
physiological monitoring devices . . . in industry or academia.” Id. Patent
Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 8.
We find Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the person of ordinary
skill in the art to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in
the patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., In re
GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
D. Claim Construction
In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same claim
construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this
standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and
customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Only claim
terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
1. Beam, plurality of lenses, pulse rate
Petitioner requests construction of the terms “beam,” “plurality of
lenses,” and “pulse rate.” See Pet. 18–20. We declined to expressly
construe these terms in our Institution Decision because their construction
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

10
was not needed to resolve any dispute between the parties. See Dec. Inst. 9.
Neither party disputes that initial determination, which we maintain here.
See PO Resp. 8–13; Pet. Reply 2–9.
2. Personal device
We expressly construed this term in our Institution Decision to resolve
a dispute between the parties. See Dec. Inst. 11–12. Specifically, we
construed the term to include, but not be limited to, “a computer or
microprocessor-based device having a wireless receiver, a wireless
transmitter, a display, a microphone, a speaker, one or more buttons or
knobs, a microprocessor, and a touch screen.” Id. Neither party disputes
that construction, which we maintain here. See PO Resp. 8–13; Pet. Reply
2–9.
3. Light source
In our Institution Decision, we expressly construed “a light source
comprising a plurality of semiconductor sources that are light emitting
diodes . . . configured to increase signal-to-noise ratio by . . . increasing a
pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of semiconductor sources.” Dec.
Inst. 9–11. In doing so, we noted the scant support for this term in the
Specification, which twice repeats the same phrase with no explanation of its
meaning. Id. at 10. We further noted the Specification and claims were
amended at the same time to include this phrase, with no indication of how
the phrase was supported by the originally filed Specification. Id. at 10, n.4.
Nonetheless, we construed the phrase to mean “a light source containing two
or more light emitting diodes (semiconductor sources), wherein at least one
of the light emitting diodes is capable of having its pulse rate increased to
increase a signal-to-noise ratio.” Id. at 10.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

11
Patent Owner disputes this construction, arguing it “eliminat[es] the
claimed ‘actor’ that increases the pulse rate, i.e., the device,” and
erroneously “replaces the claim term ‘configured to’ with the broader phrase
‘is capable of.’” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues the correct construction
of this term is “a light source, containing two or more light emitting diodes
(semiconductor sources), where the light source is configured to increase the
pulse rate of at least one of the light emitting diodes to increase signal-to-
noise ratio.” 4 Id. at 13. Patent Owner argues the Specification supports this
construction by disclosing “‘use of an active illuminator, [whereby] a
number of advantages may be achieved’ including ‘high signal-to-noise
ratios.’” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 16:54–58).
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, the
limitation does not recite a “device” or “actor” configured to increase signal-
to-noise by increasing LED pulse rate. Instead, it recites a “light source
comprising a plurality of . . . light emitting diodes,” where the light source
itself—i.e., the plurality of LEDs—is “configured to increase signal-to-noise
ratio by increasing . . . a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of [LEDs].”
Ex. 1001, 16:48–50, 16:56–60. That is, the limitation recites a plurality of
LEDs that are configured to increase signal-to-noise by increasing the pulse
rate of at least one of the LEDs. No “device” or “actor” is recited to increase
the pulse rate of the LEDs. Thus, the only reasonable construction is that the

4 We note here that Patent Owner contradicts this proposed construction in
its Sur-Reply, where Patent Owner argues “[t]he claim requires a light
source ‘configured to increase SNR,’ not a light source ‘configured to
increase a pulse rate.’” PO Sur-Reply 4.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

12
LEDs are “capable” of having their pulse rate increased to increase signal-
to-noise, as we initially construed this phrase.
Patent Owner argues that our construction is incorrect because
“capable of” is a broader term than “configured to” and, therefore,
“configured to” does not mean “capable of.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2012)). In the context of these claims, we disagree. First, we note that
Aspex Eyewear did not consider and did not construe “configured to.” See
Aspex Eyewear, 672 F.3d at 1348–49. Instead, the term “magnetic members
adapted to extend” was construed to mean “magnetic members . . . made to
extend.” Id. at 1348 (emphases added). By contrast, the proper construction
of “configured to” was considered in Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba,
Inc., 650 Fed. App’x. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Superior Industries, the
Federal Circuit considered and approved a district court’s construction of a
“support frame . . . configured to support an end of an earthen ramp” to
mean “the support frame be capable of supporting an earthen ramp.” Id. at
996, 998 (emphases added).
Accordingly, for these reasons, we maintain our construction of this
limitation to mean “a light source containing two or more light emitting
diodes (semiconductor sources), wherein at least one of the light emitting
diodes is capable of having its pulse rate increased to increase a signal-to-
noise ratio.”
E. Overview of the Prior Art
1. Lisogurski
Lisogurski discloses a “physiological monitoring system [that]
monitor[s] one or more physiological parameters of a patient . . . using one
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

13
or more physiological sensors.” Ex. 1011, 3:44–46. The physiological
sensors may include a “pulse oximeter [that] non-invasively measure[s] the
oxygen saturation of a patient’s blood.” Id. at 3:62–64. The pulse oximeter
includes “a light sensor that is placed at a site on a patient, typically a
fingertip, toe, forehead, or earlobe.” Id. at 4:6–7. The light sensor “pass[es]
light through blood perfused tissue and photoelectrically sense[s] the
absorption of the light in the tissue.” Id. at 4:8–11. The light sensor emits
“one or more wavelengths [of light] that are attenuated by the blood in an
amount representative of the blood constituent concentration,” including red
and infrared (IR) wavelengths of light. Id. at 4:42–48.
Figure 3 of Lisogurski is reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Lisogurski is “a perspective view of an embodiment of a
physiological monitoring system.” Id. at 2:23–25. The system includes
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

14
sensor 312, monitor 314, and multi-parameter physiological monitor
(“MPPM”) 326. Id. at 17:35–36, 18:44–45. Sensor 312 includes “one or
more light sources 316 for emitting light at one or more wavelengths” and
detector 318 for “detecting the light that is reflected by or has traveled
through the subject’s tissue.” Id. at 17:37–42. Sensor 312 may have “[a]ny
suitable configuration of light source 316 and detector 318,” and “may
include multiple light sources and detectors [that] may be spaced apart.” Id.
at 17:42–45. Light source 316 may include “LEDs of multiple wavelengths,
for example a red LED and an IR [LED].” Id. at 19:25–27. Sensor 312 may
be “wirelessly connected to monitor 314.” Id. at 17:57–59.
Monitor 314 “calculate[s] physiological parameters based at least in
part on data relating to light emission . . . received from one or more sensor
units such as sensor unit 312.” Id. at 17:59–62. Monitor 314 includes
“display 320 . . . to display the physiological parameters,” and “speaker 322
to provide an audible . . . alarm in the event that a subject’s physiological
parameters are not within a predefined normal range.” Id. at 18:3–10.
Monitor 314 is communicatively coupled to MPPM 326, with which it “may
communicate wirelessly.” Id. at 18:58–61. Monitor 314 may also be
“coupled to a network to enable the sharing of information with servers or
other workstations.” Id. at 18:62–65.
MPPM 326 may “calculate physiological parameters and . . . provide
a display 328 for information from monitor 314.” Id. at 18:49–52. MPPM
326 may also be “coupled to a network to enable the sharing of information
with servers or other workstations.” Id. at 18:62–65. The remote network
servers may “be used to determine physiological parameters,” and may
display the parameters on a remote display, display 320 of monitor 314, or
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

15
display 328 of MPPM 326. Id. at 20:53–58. The remote servers may also
“publish the data to a server or website,” or otherwise “make the parameters
available to a user.” Id. at 20:58–60.
Lisogurski discloses the monitoring system shown in Figure 3,
described above, “may include one or more components of physiological
monitoring system 100 of FIG. 1.” Id. at 17:32–35. Lisogurski further
discloses that although “the components of physiological monitoring system
100 . . . are shown and described as separate components. . . . the
functionality of some of the components may be combined in a single
component,” and “the functionality of some of the components . . . may be
divided over multiple components.” Id. at 15:66–16:9. Figure 1 of
Lisogurski is reproduced below.

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

16
Figure 1 of Lisogurski is a “block diagram of an illustrative physiological
monitoring system.” Id. at 2:11–13. The system includes “sensor 102 and
monitor 104 for generating and processing physiological signals of a
subject.” Id. at 10:44–46. Sensor 102 includes “light source 130 and
detector 140.” Id. at 10:48–49. Light source 130 includes “a Red light
emitting light source and an IR light emitting light source,” such as Red and
IR emitting LEDs, with the IR LED emitting light with a “wavelength [that]
may be between about 800 nm and 1000 nm.” Id. at 10:52–58. Detector
140 “detect[s] the intensity of light at the Red and IR wavelengths,” converts
them to an electrical signal, and “send[s] the detection signal to monitor 104,
where the detection signal may be processed and physiological parameters
may be determined.” Id. at 11:9–10, 11:20–23.
Monitor 104 includes user interface 180, communication interface
190, and control circuitry 110 for controlling (a) light drive circuitry 120,
(b) front end processing circuitry 150, and (c) back end processing circuitry
170 via “timing control signals.” Id. at 11:33–38, Fig. 1. Light drive
circuitry 120 “generate[s] a light drive signal . . . used to turn on and off the
light source 130, based on the timing control signals.” Id. at 11:38–40. The
light drive signal “control[s] the intensity of light source 130 and the timing
of when the light source 130 is turned on and off.” Id. at 11:50–54. Front
end processing circuitry 150 “receive[s] a detection signal from detector 140
and provides one or more processed signals to back end processing circuitry
170.” Id. at 12:42–45. Front end processing circuitry 150 “synchronize[s]
the operation of an analog-to-digital converter and a demultiplexer with the
light drive signal based on the timing control signals.” Id. at 11:43–46.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

17
Backend processing circuitry 170 “use[s] the timing control signals to
coordinate its operation with front end processing circuitry 150.” Id. at
11:46–49. Backend processing circuitry 170 includes processor 172 and
memory 174, and “receive[s] and process[es] physiological signals received
from front end processing circuitry 150” to “determine one or more
physiological parameters.” Id. at 14:56–57, 14:60–64. Backend processing
circuitry 170 is “communicatively coupled [to] use[r] interface 180 and
communication interface 190.” Id. at 15:16–18. User interface 180 includes
“user input 182, display 184, and speaker 186,” and may include “a
keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, buttons, switches, [and] a microphone.”
Id. at 15:19–22. Communication interface 190 allows “monitor 104 to
exchange information with external devices,” and includes transmitters and
receivers to allow wireless communications. Id. at 15:43–44, 15:48–57.
Lisogurski teaches the physiological monitoring system may modulate
the light drive signal to have a “period the same as or closely related to the
period of [a] cardiac cycle.” Id. at 25:49–51. Thus, “[t]he system may vary
parameters related to the light drive signal including drive current or light
brightness, duty cycle, firing rate, . . . [and] other suitable parameters.” Id.
at 25:52–55. Lisogurski further teaches “the system may alter the cardiac
cycle modulation technique based on the level of noise, ambient light, [and]
other suitable reasons.” Id. at 9:46–48. Thus, “[t]he system may increase
the brightness of the light sources in response to [any] noise to improve the
signal-to-noise ratio.” Id. at 9:50–52. The system may also “change from a
modulated light output to a constant light output in response to noise, patient
motion, or ambient light.” Id. at 9:57–60.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

18
2. Carlson
Carlson discloses an “optical pulsoximetry [device] used for non-
invasive measurement of pulsation and oxygen saturation in arterial human
or animal blood.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 2. The device measures the light “absorption
of reduced (Hb)—and oxidized (HbO2) h[e]moglobin at two optical
wavelengths, where the relative absorption coefficients differ significantly.”
Id. ¶ 3.
Figure 2 of Carlson is reproduced below.

Figure 2 of Carlson is a schematic illustration of an ear clip sensor 1 of a
pulsoximeter device. Id. ¶¶ 33, 49. Sensor 1 includes light source 15, which
transmits light beam 8 through a patient’s earlobe 2, and light detector 11 to
detect the transmitted light. Id. ¶ 49. Light source 15 emits light at two
wavelengths—660 nm and 890 nm—and can consist of two LEDs. Id. ¶ 50.
Carlson’s pulsoximeter can be used to “survey the health condition of
a person or an animal [that] is mobile.” Id. ¶ 72. Carlson teaches that
patient mobility can cause “standard pulsoximeter sensors [to] suffer from
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

19
signal instability and insufficient robustness versus environmental
disturbances.” Id. ¶ 4. Environmental disturbances can include ambient
light, such as sunlight. Id. ¶ 68. For example, a person walking or driving
down a tree-lined avenue can experience “relatively quick changing
conditions between sunlight and shadow,” such that a pulsoximeter sensor
worn by the person will receive sunlight “at a certain frequency, which
means that every time when passing a tree, sunlight is attenuated and
between the trees sunlight is influencing the measurement of the
pulsoximeter sensor.” Id.
To address such problems, Carlson includes “optical and/or electronic
means for increasing Signal-to-Noise ratio (S/N) . . . in rough (optical)
environmental conditions.” Id. ¶ 10. In particular, Carlson’s LEDs emit
light “not as a current or continuous light but as pulsed light.” Id. ¶ 69.
Carlson “temporarily modulate[s] the optical radiation of the LED at the
carrier frequency f0 in order to shift the power spectrum of the pulsoximeter
signals into a higher frequency range where environmental optical radiation
is unlikely.” Id. ¶ 65. Temporary modulation frequency f0 is “chosen in
such a way that it is outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and of
ambient light.” Id. ¶ 69. This allows easy discrimination of pulsoximeter
signals from environmental signals, such as sunlight and ambient light, and
“increas[es] significantly the Signal-to-Noise and Signal-to-Background
ratio.” Id.
Carlson further discloses that sensor 1 can be wirelessly connected to
“a special unit worn by [a] person or patient,” where “a signal is generated if
[a] measured value is not within a predetermined range.” Id. ¶¶ 77–78. The
generated signal can be “transmitted to a respective person, to a medical
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

20
doctor, to a hospital, etc.” Id. ¶ 78. The pulsoximeter can also include a
“GPS device which at any time gives the location of the person using the
pulsoximetric sensor monitoring configuration.” Id.
3. Mannheimer
Mannheimer discloses a pulse oximetry device that “non-invasively
measure[s] oxygen saturation of arterial blood in vivo.” Ex. 1008, 1:10–13.
Mannheimer’s device performs a “pulsed oximetry measurement [that]
isolates arterial saturation levels for particular ranges of tissue layers . . . by
utilizing multiple spaced detectors and/or emitters.” Id. at 2:1–6. Figure 1A
of Mannheimer is reproduced below.

Figure 1A of Mannheimer is a schematic diagram of a first embodiment of a
pulse oximeter having one emitter 16 and two detectors 20/24. Id. at 2:40–
42. Emitter 16 can be a single LED or multiple LEDs collocated to simulate
a single point source. Id. at 3:13–18. Emitter 16 is separated from detector
20 by a first distance r1, and is separated from detector 24 by a second
distance r2. Id. at 3:23–24. Light from emitter 16 is scattered by skin layer
14 and deeper skin layer 12, and reaches detectors 20/24 via respective paths
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

21
18/22. Id. at 3:18–20. Mannheimer calculates blood oxygen concentration
in skin layer 12 from the intensity of two different wavelengths of light
detected at detectors 20/24 at two different times. Id. at 3:35–4:63.
In addition to the embodiment shown in Figure 1A, Mannheimer
discloses a second embodiment of a pulse oximeter in Figure 1B, reproduced
below.

Figure 1B of Mannheimer is a schematic diagram of a second embodiment
of a pulse oximeter having two emitters 16/17 and one detector 24. Id. at
2:43–44, 3:37–39. As shown in Figure 1B, emitter 17 is separated from
detector 24 by a first distance r1, and emitter 16 is separated from detector 24
by a second distance r2. Mannheimer discloses that “[t]hose of skill in the
art will appreciate that the operation” of the second embodiment shown in
Figure 1B “is similar to that described above” in reference to the first
embodiment shown in Figure 1A. Id. at 5:58–62.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

22
F. Patentability of claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 over Lisogurski and
Carlson
Petitioner argues claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as
obvious over the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson. See Pet. 21–63.
1. Petitioner’s proposed combination
Petitioner proposes combining Lisogurski’s physiological monitoring
system shown in Figures 1 and 3, in which sensor 102/312 wirelessly
communicates with monitor 104/314, with Carlson’s teachings regarding
pulsing an LED at a frequency that increases signal-to-noise in a wireless
pulsoximeter sensor. See Pet. 24–26, 32–34, 38–39, 41–44, 47–51.
Petitioner’s proposed combination relocates some components of
Lisogurski’s monitor 104/314 to sensor 102/312, as illustrated in a series of
Petitioner-modified versions of Lisogurski’s Figure 1, which we combine
into a single modified version shown below. See id. at 33, 47, 50.

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

23
Modified Figure 1 of Lisogurski illustrates Petitioner’s proposed
combination, which involves relocating control circuitry 110, light drive
circuitry 120, and front end processing circuitry 150 of monitor 104 to
sensor 102 as illustrated. Id.
Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning
to demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Lisogurski’s sensor 102/312 and monitor 104/314 in the manner proposed.
See id. at 6–12, 32–34, 47–49 (citing/quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–56, 98–103,
138, 142–146; Ex. 1005 ¶ 3; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4; Ex. 1011, 11:20–27, 11:38–41,
11:5054, 16:2–9, 17:32–35, 17:55–59, 18:16–31, 25:52–55; Ex. 1020, 3, 6–
7, 12; Ex. 1021, 2–4; Ex. 1022, 1; Ex. 1023, 1, 2, 5, 6; Ex. 1024, 459, 460,
462; Ex. 1027, 9, 10, 15–31, 33, 35, 40–49; Ex. 1029, 221).
First, Lisogurski expressly suggests the modification by teaching
embodiments in which “the functionality of some of the components may be
combined in a single component” and embodiments in which “the
functionality of some of the components of monitor 104 . . . may be divided
over multiple components.” Ex. 1011, 16:2–4, 16:7–9. Second, numerous
industry trends motivate the modification. These include improving the
capabilities of wearable sensors for use in sports and personal fitness
applications and wirelessly connecting wearable sensors to networks to
remotely monitor patient health. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 3; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4; Ex. 1020,
3; Ex. 1021, 2–4; Ex. 1022, 1; Ex. 1024, 462, Ex. 1027, 9, 10, 15, 33, 35,
40–49; Ex. 1029, 221; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it. . . . If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

24
bars its patentability.”). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp.
14–32.
Petitioner also articulates sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning to demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Lisogurski’s light source to incorporate the teachings of
Carlson. See Pet. 24–26, 37–39 (citing/quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–85, 117–
122; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 2, 4, 10, 48, 52, 67–69; Ex. 1011, 1:4–6, 1:16–18, 1:67–
2:3, 3:50–53, 4:15–20, 4:63–67, 5:55–61, 9:46–60, 17:51–58, 37:6–18).
Lisogurski and Carlson teach complementary and combinable
methods for increasing signal-to-noise in a wearable pulsoximeter in the
presence of ambient light or sunlight. For example, Lisogurski “may alter
the cardiac cycle modulation technique based on the level of noise, ambient
light, [or] other suitable reasons.” Ex. 1011, 9:46–48. In particular,
Lisogurski “may increase the brightness of the light sources in response to
the noise to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In some embodiments, the
system may increase brightness throughout the cardiac cycle . . . .” Id. at
9:50–54 Carlson includes “electronic means for increasing the Signal-to-
Noise . . . in rough (optical) environmental conditions, e.g., at changing light
influences, such as sunlight, shadow, artificial light, etc.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 10. In
particular, Carlson pulses LEDs at a “frequency [that] is chosen in such a
way that it is outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and of ambient
light. . . . [thereby] increasing significantly the Signal-to-Noise.” Id. ¶ 69.
Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a person skilled in the art would
have combined the teachings of Lisogurski and Carlson because the
references teach “complementary designs and techniques in analogous
systems,” including “techniques for achieving the same objectives” of
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

25
increasing signal-to-noise in the presence of environmental noise such as
ambient light or sunlight. Pet 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–84). Patent Owner
does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
2. Claims 5 and 13
a. A measurement system and wearable measurement device
Claim 13 recites a measurement system, and requires the system to
include a wearable measurement device for measuring one or more
physiological parameters. Ex. 1001 30:46–48. Petitioner demonstrates that
Lisogurski’s system 100/310, including sensor 102/312 for measuring blood
oxygen saturation, meets this limitation. See Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1011, 4:6–
20, 17:55–59). Sensor 102/312 is a pulse oximeter that can be battery
powered, wirelessly connected to monitor 104/314, and mounted on a user’s
fingertip, toe, earlobe, wrist, or thigh. Ex. 1011, 4:6–8, 4:15–20, 17:55–59.
Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 13–42.
b. A light source including a plurality of LEDs
Claim 13 further requires the wearable measurement device to include
a light source that includes a plurality of semiconductor sources that are light
emitting diodes configured to generate an output optical beam with one or
more optical wavelengths, including a near-infrared wavelength between
700 and 2500 nanometers. Ex. 1001 30:48–55. Petitioner demonstrates how
Lisogurski’s sensor 102/312 meets this limitation. See Pet. 29–30 (citing
Ex. 1011, 4:42–45, 7:38–8:3, 10:48–52, 10:56–63, 17:37–45, 19:25–31,
Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–94). Sensor 102/312 can contain multiple LEDs
that emit and direct light toward a subject’s tissue, including an LED that
emits red light, and an LED that emits infrared light having a wavelength
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

26
between 800 and 1000 nm. Ex. 1011, 10:48–52, 10:56–63. Patent Owner
does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 13–42.
c. The light source configured to increase signal-to-noise by
increasing a light intensity
Claim 13 further requires the light source to be configured to increase
signal-to-noise by increasing a light intensity of at least one of the plurality
of semiconductor sources. Ex. 1001 30:56–58. Petitioner demonstrates how
Lisogurski’s LED-based light source 130/316 meets this limitation. See Pet.
30–31 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:19–21, 1:44–46, 1:67–2:3, 5:55–6:6, 9:46–52,
9:57–60, 10:48–49, 11:38–41, 11:50–54, 14:49–55, 35:5–9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–
98). Lisogurski teaches “the intensity of light source 130 and the timing of
when light source 130 is turned on and off” is controlled by a light drive
signal that “increase[s] the brightness of the light sources in response to . . .
noise to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.” Ex. 1011, 9:50–52, 11:50–54.
Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 13–42.
d. The light source configured to increase signal-to-noise by
increasing a pulse rate
Claim 13 further requires the light source to be configured to increase
signal-to-noise by increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of
semiconductor sources. Ex. 1001 30:58–60 (“the pulse rate limitation”).
Petitioner contends Lisogurski alone teaches this limitation, and further
contends the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches this limitation.
See Pet. 35–39. Patent Owner disputes this. See PO Resp. 14–32. We
address Petitioner’s contentions below, and notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
arguments to the contrary, find Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski
alone, or in combination with Carlson, teaches or suggests the pulse rate
limitation.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

27
(1) Lisogurski alone
Petitioner argues that Lisogurski alone teaches the pulse rate
limitation by teaching (1) the LED firing rate and brightness can be varied
by the light drive signal, (2) the detector sampling rate is correlated to the
LED firing rate and can be varied in the same way as the LED brightness,
and (3) the LED brightness can be increased to increase signal-to-noise. See
Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1011, 2:1–2, 8:29–35, 9:46–52, 11:43–46, 11:52–55,
25:49–55, 33:47–49, 33:56–58, 35:7–9; 35:27–31, 37:6–22; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 112–116). That is, Petitioner argues that Lisogurski teaches the pulse rate
limitation because the LED firing rate and detector sampling rate are
correlated and “increasing the sampling rate ‘may result in more accurate
and reliable physiological information.’” Id. at 36 (quoting Ex. 1011,
33:56–58; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116).
In our Institution Decision, we made a preliminary finding that
Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated how Lisogurski teaches the
pulse rate limitation because Lisogurski varies the LED brightness, LED
pulse rate, and detector sampling rate to be synchronous with a cardiac cycle
rather than to improve signal-to-noise. Dec. Inst. 30–31. For example,
Lisogurski teaches:
[T]he system may generate a light drive signal that varies with
a period the same as or closely related to the period of the
cardiac cycle, thus generating a cardiac cycle modulation. The
system may vary parameters related to the light drive signal
including drive current or light brightness, duty cycle, firing
rate, modulation parameters, other suitable parameters, or any
combination thereof.
Ex. 1011, 25:49–55 (emphases added). Lisogurski further teaches:
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

28
It will also be understood that sampling rate is one of the
components that may be modulated in cardiac cycle modulation
as described above. It will also be understood that the earlier
described embodiments relating to varying light output may
also apply to sampling rate.
Id. at 35:5–9 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner at first agrees with this preliminary finding. See PO
Resp. 16 (“In its Institution Decision, the Board correctly found that
Lisogurski fails to disclose increasing SNR by increasing a pulse rate as
claimed.”). However, Patent Owner then makes the following statement:
Lisogurski teaches three different techniques for improving
SNR: (i) by increasing the “brightness” of the light source,
(ii) by operating in a “high power mode without cardiac cycle
modulation,” and (iii) by modulating the light signal to
correlate with “physiological pulses” such as a “cardiac
pulse,” e.g., “diastole period cardiac modulation” or “systole
period cardiac cycle modulation.”
Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1011, 25:66–26:14; 42:45–58) (emphases added)
(internal citations omitted). In other words, Patent Owner expressly
recognizes that Lisogurski improves signal-to-noise by modulating the light
signal to correlate with, for example, a cardiac pulse. Id.
Petitioner replies that “when a person’s heart rate increases”
Lisogurski “increase[s] the sampling rate and emitter firing rate to become
or remain synchronous with [the] cardiac cycle.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex.
1011, 25:49–55; 31:11–24; 31:39–55). Petitioner argues this allows
Lisogurski to obtain “more accurate and reliable physiological information,”
which a person skilled in the art would have understood occurs “because
[the] SNR is higher.” Id. at 11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 33:46–52; citing Ex. 1003
¶ 116). Petitioner further argues Patent Owner has admitted this because
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

29
“Omni admitted that cardiac cycle modulation is a technique for increasing
SNR.” Id. (quoting PO Resp. 15).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, which is supported not
only by intrinsic evidence and argument advanced by Patent Owner, but also
testimony provided by Patent Owner’s own witness. Lisogurski teaches
correlating LED pulse rate and cardiac cycle rate, for example, by increasing
LED pulse rate to match an increased cardiac cycle rate. See Ex. 1011,
25:46-55. Patent Owner acknowledges that Lisogurski teaches signal-to-
noise can be improved by correlating the LED drive signal with a cardiac
cycle signal. See PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1011, 25:66–26:14, 42:45–58).
For example, Lisogurski teaches that noise contributes “variations of 2.6%,
1.9%, and 3.8% to the computed pulse amplitudes of PPG5 signal 2602,
systole period modulated PPG signal 2604, and diastole period modulated
PPG signal 2606.” Ex. 1011, 42:50–54. Thus, increasing the LED firing
rate to become synchronous with the systole period of an increased cardiac
cycle rate can result in a physiological measurement having less noise
(1.9%), and, therefore, an increased signal-to-noise ratio. Lisogurski also
teaches that modulating an LED drive signal to match “particular segments
of a respiratory cycle may provide an increased signal-to-noise ratio.”
Ex. 1011, 25:66–26:14 (emphasis added). Dr. MacFarlane, Patent Owner’s
expert, similarly testified that “increasing the [LED pulse] frequency can

5 Lisogurski identifies a PPG or photoplethysmograph signal as “[a] signal
representing light intensity versus time or a mathematical manipulation of
this signal.” Ex. 1001, 4:26–31. For example, a PPG signal can be a light
absorption signal where “the amount of light absorbed may then be used to
calculate any of a number of physiological parameters.” Id. at 4:31–38.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

30
sometimes increase the signal-to-noise ratio.” Ex. 1060, 82:5–15 (emphasis
added).
An LED is “configured” to increase signal-to-noise by increasing
LED pulse rate when it is “capable” of doing so, even if it only does so some
of the time. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 340 F.3d
1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“a prior art product that sometimes, but not
always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the
invention”). This is so because whether signal-to-noise increases with
increasing LED pulse rate depends on an external factor—the noise
spectrum in the environment within which the device operates. But the
claim is directed to the device itself, regardless of the environment within
which it operates. Thus, a light source is “configured” to increase signal-to-
noise by increasing LED pulse rate when it is “capable” of doing so, i.e.,
when the increased pulse rate allows the device to operate in a frequency
range having less environmental noise. This is true, even if the device does
not always do so. See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A] prior art reference may anticipate or render
obvious an apparatus claim . . . if the reference discloses an apparatus that is
reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the claim limitations, even if it
does not meet the claim limitations in all modes of operation.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has
demonstrated how Lisogurski alone teaches the pulse rate limitation.
(2) Lisogurski and Carlson
Petitioner also argues that, to the extent Lisogurski alone does not
teach the pulse rate limitation, the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson
does. See Pet. 37–39. Specifically, Petitioner argues that because
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

31
Lisogurski “clearly identifies the importance of increasing signal-to-noise
ratio” a person skilled in the art “would have been motivated to consider
prior art teaching additional ways of improving signal-to-noise ratio.” Id. at
37 (citing Ex. 1011, 9:50–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–85, 120–121). Petitioner
argues Carlson does so by pulsing an oximeter’s LEDs at a frequency
“outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and of ambient light” in order to
“reduce[] the effects of ambient light including sunlight.” Id. at 37–38
(citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 67–69; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–119).
Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to modify Lisogurski
based on the teachings of Carlson because both references recognize the
problem of ambient light noise “and the need to offset its negative impact on
the signal-to-noise ratio.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 67–69; Ex. 1011
9:46–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–121). Petitioner argues Lisogurski teaches
adjusting the LED firing rate “in response to changes in environmental
conditions, such as changes in background noise or ambient light.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:3, 5:55–61, 9:46–60, 37:6–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120–
122). Petitioner further argues Carlson teaches “increasing the modulation
frequency of the pulsed LEDs improves the signal-to-noise ratio” by
teaching the LED “pulse frequency (‘pulse rate’) is ‘chosen in such a way
that it is outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and ambient light’ and it
could be ‘1000 Hz’ or ‘can be chosen at any other frequency, as e.g. 2000
Hz or even higher.’” Id. at 37–39 (quoting Ex. 1009 ¶ 69; citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 119–121). Thus, Petitioner argues, “a skilled person would have found it
obvious to configure Lisogurski to increase the firing rate (frequency) of
LEDs as taught by Carlson, given that Carlson teaches that increasing the
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

32
modulation frequency of the pulsed LEDs improves the signal-to-noise.” Id.
at 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 120–121).
In our Institution Decision, we made a preliminary finding that
Petitioner was reasonably likely to show how the combination of Lisogurski
and Carlson teaches the pulse rate limitation because:
Together, the references teach that a pulsoximeter can detect a
change in background noise and modify the LED firing rate
based on the detected change (as taught by Lisogurski), and can
modify the frequency of the LED firing rate to be greater than
the frequency of the background noise (as taught by Carlson).
Dec. Inst. 36 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:3, 37:6–9; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65, 69).
Patent Owner argues this is “an obviousness argument the Petition did not
assert.” PO Resp. 31. Petitioner disagrees, arguing “the Board did not
advance a new argument in its Institution Decision.” Pet. Reply 24–25.
We agree with Petitioner. The Petition states: Lisogurski “adjust[s]
various parameters of light emitted by the LEDs to ensure an adequate
signal-to-noise ratio,” including “drive current or light brightness, duty
cycle, [and] firing rate.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1011, 25:49–55, 27:44–52,
37:6–22) (internal citations omitted). We agree. For example, Lisogurski
measures a physiological parameter in cardiac cycle modulation mode using
“a light drive signal that varies with a period the same as . . . the period of
the cardiac cycle,” i.e., a 1 second period corresponding to a firing rate of 1
Hz. Ex. 1011, 5:48–54, 25:46–52. Lisogurski “detect[s] a change in
background noise [or] . . . ambient light” and “perform[s] a physiological
measurement in a second mode.” Id. at 37:6–9, 37:14–15. The second
mode, for example, can (a) “stop cardiac cycle modulation,” (b) “increase
emitter intensity” during cardiac cycle modulation, (c) “lengthen the ‘on’
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

33
periods” (i.e., duty cycle) of cardiac cycle modulation, or (d) “alter the
cardiac cycle modulation” by changing the LED firing rate as shown in
Figure 8B. Id. at 37:15–22. That is, the second mode can differ from
cardiac cycle modulation by changing any of the light drive signal
parameters, i.e., the “drive current or light brightness, duty cycle, firing rate
. . . or any combination thereof.” Id. at 27:44–49. Thus, in the Petition,
Petitioner cites sufficient evidence to persuasively demonstrate how
Lisogurski teaches (1) modulating an LED by pulsing it at a 1 Hz rate that
matches a cardiac cycle, (2) detecting ambient light noise, and (3) changing
the LED modulation to operate in a second mode by changing one or more
of the LED brightness, duty cycle (on time per cycle), or firing rate.
The Petition also states: Carlson teaches “pulsing the LEDs reduces
the effects of ambient light including sunlight” when “the pulse frequency
(‘pulse rate’) is ‘chosen in such a way that it is outside the frequency
spectrum of sunlight and of ambient light.” Pet. 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1009
¶ 69). We agree. For example, Carlson teaches various means to improve a
pulsoximeter’s signal-to-noise. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 62–69. These include “us[ing]
a light source modulation to temporarily modulate the optical radiation of
the LED” at a frequency that “is chosen in such a way that it is outside the
frequency spectrum of sunlight and of ambient light . . . in the range of
above approximately 1000 Hz.” Id. ¶¶ 64, 69.
Finally, the Petition also states: Lisogurski “can readily be modified
to incorporate the Carlson technique, given that Lisogurski teaches that the
firing rate of the LEDs can be adjusted in response to changes in
environmental conditions, such as changes in background noise or ambient
light.” Pet. 38. We agree. As discussed above, Lisogurski teaches (1)
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

34
taking a physiological measurement in cardiac cycle modulation mode using
LEDs modulated at a 1Hz pulse rate, (2) exiting the cardiac cycle
modulation mode upon detecting ambient light noise, and (3) taking the
measurement in a second mode that varies any combination of LED
brightness, duty cycle, or firing rate, and Carlson teaches (4) taking a
physiological measurement using an LED modulated at a 1000 Hz pulse rate
to reduce ambient light noise. See Pet. 35, 37 (citing Ex. 1011, 25:49–55,
27:44–52, 37:6–22; Ex. 1009 ¶ 69) (internal citations omitted). Thus,
Petitioner cites sufficient evidence in the Petition to demonstrate how the
combination of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches the pulse rate limitation.
Patent Owner next argues that the combination of Lisogurski and
Carlson does not teach the pulse rate limitation because “neither reference
teaches nor suggests a device ‘configured to’ increase a pulse rate to
increase SNR” PO Resp. 28. That is, Patent Owner argues the combination
fails to teach the pulse rate limitation because both Lisogurski6 and Carlson7

6 As discussed in § II.F.2.d(1), supra, we find Lisogurski teaches the pulse
rate limitation, e.g., by increasing the LED pulse rate to match an increased
cardiac cycle rate.
7 Patent Owner argues Carlson fails to teach the pulse rate limitation because
Carlson discloses temporarily modulating a continuous light source to
operate “at a chosen single, fixed pulse rate” that is not increased. PO Resp.
17. The concurrence disagrees. We need not resolve that issue here,
however, because we find Lisogurski teaches switching the LED pulse rate
from a cardiac cycle mode (1 Hz pulse rate) to a second mode that reduces
ambient light noise, and Carlson teaches pulsing the LED at 1000 Hz to
reduce ambient light noise. That is, the combination teaches increasing
signal-to-noise by increasing the LED pulse rate from 1 Hz to 1000 Hz.

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

35
fail to teach it. Id. at 25–26.
We are not persuaded by this argument because it fails to consider the
combined teachings of Carlson and Lisogurski. “Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for
obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller 642 F.2d 413,
425 (Fed. Cir. 1981). As discussed above, the combined teachings of
Lisogurski and Carlson are to (1) pulse an LED at 1 Hz in a cardiac cycle
modulation mode, (2) detect ambient light noise, and (3) switch to a second
mode to reduce the ambient light noise, such as a mode that pulses the LED
at 1000 Hz. Thus, the proposed combination of Lisogurski and Carlson is
the simple “substitution of one element for another known in the field” to
achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has
demonstrated that the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches a light
source configured to increase signal-to-noise by increasing LED pulse rate.
e. A plurality of lenses
Claim 13 further requires the wearable measurement device to include
a plurality of lenses configured to receive a portion of the output optical
beam and to deliver an analysis output beam to a sample. Ex. 1001 30:60–
63. Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski’s wireless sensor 102/312,
when combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art or
the teachings of Carlson, meets this limitation. See Pet. 39–43.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

36
First, Petitioner demonstrates how a person skilled in the art would
have known that LEDs are often covered by lensing encapsulants, and would
have selected such LEDs for wireless sensor 102/312 in order to “direct
more of the light produced by the LED outward toward the tissue,” thereby
improving the efficiency of wireless, battery-powered, sensor 102/312. Id.
at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–128; Ex. 1035, 97–98, 191–199). Second,
Petitioner demonstrates that a person skilled in the art, knowing “a lens is a
‘basic building block’ of an optical sensor,” would have included lenses in
Lisogurski’s wireless sensor 102/312. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129; Ex.
1019, 765). Third, Petitioner demonstrates that a person skilled in the art
would have included lenses in Lisogurski’s wireless sensor 102/312 because
Carlson teaches the advantages of doing so. Id. at 41–43 (citing Ex. 1009
¶¶ 13, 14, 24, 62, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133). Figure 4 of Carlson is
reproduced below.

Figure 4 of Carlson schematically illustrates “two light emitting sources for
an oximetric sensor, including beam shaping optics.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 35. The
beam shaping optics include “two lenses 21 that receive light beams 8
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

37
emitted by LEDs 15 . . . and deliver light bundles or beams 12 to sample 2.”
Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 54, 62). Carlson teaches lenses 21 “increase the
optical signal power without increasing the actual power used by the
system,” thereby “increasing the Signal/Noise . . . ratio.” Id. at 43 (citing
Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 10, 14). Lisogurski teaches the importance of both reducing
power consumption and increasing signal-to-noise ratio. Id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 84, 118, 133–134; Ex. 1011, 14:40–55, 37:6–20). Therefore, a person
skilled in the art would have incorporated Carlson’s lenses 21 into
Lisogurski’s wireless sensor 102/312 to increase its optical signal power and
signal-to-noise ratio without increasing its actual power. Patent Owner does
not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
f. A receiver
Claim 13 further requires the wearable measurement device to include
a receiver configured to receive and process at least a portion of the analysis
output beam reflected or transmitted from the sample and to generate an
output signal, and further configured to be synchronized to pulses of the
light source. Ex. 1001, 30:64–31:3. Petitioner identifies Lisogurski’s
detector 140/318 and front end processing circuitry 150 in monitor 104 as
the receiver. See Pet. 45 (“The detector described in Lisogurski is connected
to front end processing circuitry (together a ‘receiver configured to receive
and process’)”). Petitioner provides a modified version of Figure 1 of
Lisogurski, reproduced below, to illustrate the components of such a
receiver.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

38

The Figure is a Petitioner-modified version of Figure 1 of Lisogurski
showing Petitioner’s proposed modification of sensor 102 to include front
end processing circuitry 150 from monitor 104. For the reasons discussed in
§ II.F.1, supra, Petitioner demonstrates why a person skilled in the art would
have modified Lisogurski’s wireless sensor 102/312 to include front end
processing circuitry 150. These include Lisogurski’s express suggestion, the
industry trend to make wireless sensors for remote healthcare and personal
fitness tracking, and the need to convert “the analog signal output from the
detector . . . to digital form for wireless transmission. . . . in the sensor where
the signal is captured.” Id. at 48–49 (quoting Ex. 1011, 16:2–9; citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 144–146). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp.
8–32.
Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski’s receiver (i.e., detector
140/318 and front end processing circuitry 150) meets the “receiver”
limitations. See Pet. 44–45 (citing/quoting Ex. 1011, 11:9–10, 11:14–17,
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

39
11:20–27, 11:41–46, 12:42–45, 17:40–42, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 139). The
receiver receives and processes the output beam because it includes detector
140/318, which “detect[s] the light that is reflected by or has traveled
through the subject’s tissue” and “convert[s] the intensity of the received
light into an electrical signal.” Ex. 1011, 11:14–17, 17:39–42, Figs. 1, 3.
The receiver generates an output signal because front end processing
circuitry 150 “receive[s] a detection signal from detector 140 and provide[s]
one or more processed signals to back end processing circuitry 170.” Id. at
11:20–27, 12:42–45. The receiver is synchronized to the light source’s
pulses of light because the “front end processing circuitry may use the
timing control signals to operate synchronously with light drive circuitry
120,” i.e., the circuitry that drives Lisogurski’s LED-based light source. Id.
at 11:41–46, 11:50–54. Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp.
14–32.
g. A personal device
Claim 13 further requires a personal device that includes a wireless
receiver and transmitter, a display, a microphone, a speaker, one or more
buttons or knobs, a microprocessor and a touch screen. Ex. 1001 31:3–7.
Petitioner identifies Lisogurski’s monitor 104/314, modified as described
above to include only backend processing circuitry 170, user interface 180,
and communication interface 190, as the personal device. See Pet. 49–53.
Petitioner provides a modified version of Figure 1 of Lisogurski, reproduced
below, to illustrate the components of such a personal device.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

40

The Figure is a Petitioner-modified version of Figure 1 of Lisogurski
showing Petitioner’s proposed modification of monitor 104 to include only
backend processing circuitry 170, user interface 180, and communication
interface 190. Petitioner demonstrates why a person skilled in the art would
have modified Lisogurski’s monitor 104 in the manner proposed, including
Lisogurski’s express suggestion and the industry trend to make wireless
sensors for personal fitness tracking that transmit monitored physiological
parameters to a personal device. See § II.F.1, supra.
Petitioner demonstrates how backend processing circuitry 170
includes microprocessor 172, user interface 180 includes a display, a
microphone, a speaker, buttons, and a touch screen, and communication
interface 190 includes wireless receivers and transmitters for wireless
communications. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1011, 15:19–23, 15:49–56, Fig. 1).
Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

41
Claim 13 further requires the personal device to be configured to
receive and process at least a portion of the output signal, to store and
display the processed output signal, and to transmit at least a portion of the
processed output signal over a wireless transmission link. Ex. 1001 31:7–
12. Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski’s monitor 104/314 (i.e.,
backend processing circuitry 170, user interface 180, and communication
interface 190) meets these personal device limitations. See Pet. 50–53
(citing/quoting Ex. 1011, 14:60–15:16, 15:30–35, 15:43-48, 15:55-57,
18:11-15, 18:49-65, 26:55-60, 27:31–36, Fig. 1; Ex.1003, ¶¶150–153).
Monitor 104/314 receives and processes the output signal from the
receiver (i.e., detector 140/318 and front end processing circuitry 150)
because processor 172 in back end processing circuitry 170 “receive[s] and
process[es] physiological signals [i.e., the output signal] received from front
end processing circuitry 150” and “determine[s] one or more physiological
parameters based on the received physiological signals.” Ex. 1011, 14:56–
64, Fig. 1. Monitor 104/314 displays the processed output signal (i.e., a
determined physiological parameter) because it includes display 184/320,
which can “display, for example, an estimate of a subject’s blood oxygen
saturation generated by monitor 104.” Id. at 15:30–35, Figs. 1, 3. Monitor
104/314 stores the processed output signal because it includes memory 174,
which can store “historical information [measured in] previous cardiac
cycles.” Id. at 14:64–15:16, 27:31–36, Fig. 1. Finally, monitor 104/314
transmits the processed output signal over a wireless link because
communications interface 190 can use a wireless communications protocol
to transmit the signal to MPPM 326 for display on remote display 328. Id.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

42
at 15:43–57, 18:11–15, 18:49–65, 26:55–60, Figs. 1, 3. Patent Owner does
not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
h. A remote device
Claim 13 further requires a remote device configured to receive over
the wireless transmission link an output status including at least a portion of
the processed output signal, to process the received output status to generate
and store processed data, and to store a history of at least a portion of the
received output status over a specified period of time. Ex. 1001, 31:13–20.
Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski’s MPPM 326 meets these
limitations. See Pet. 53–55 (citing Ex. 1011, 15:43–48, 18:49–53, 18:58–62,
20:8–13, 26:51–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 154–163). MPPM 326 can be wirelessly
coupled to monitor 104/314 and receive an output status that includes the
processed output signal (i.e., a physiological parameter) over a wireless link.
Ex. 1011, 15:43–48, 18:49–56, 18:58–62, Fig. 3. MPPM 326 can process
the received output status to generate and store processed data, e.g., because
monitor 104/314 can “publish” the data. Id. at 26:51–60. According to the
unrebutted testimony of Dr. Anthony, MPPM 326 “would need to process
the data and then store it” in order to “publish” it. Ex. 1003 ¶ 155. MPPM
326 can also store a history of the output status over a period of time because
it can perform statistical analysis on a history of physiological parameter
measurements, e.g., to determine the average value and standard deviation of
the physiological parameter measurements. Ex. 1011, 20:8–13. Patent
Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Lisogurski and
Carlson teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and that claim 13 is
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

43
unpatentable over the combination. As discussed in § II.B, supra, claim 5 is
broader than, but substantially similar in scope to, claim 13. Petitioner’s
analysis of claim 5, therefore, relies on its analysis of claim 13. See Pet. 55–
57. Accordingly, we find Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
evidence that claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of Lisogurski and
Carlson for the same reasons discussed above for claim 13.
3. Claims 7 and 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 13, and further requires the remote
device to be configured to transmit at least a portion of the processed data to
one or more other locations selected from the group consisting of the
personal device, a doctor, a healthcare provider, a cloud-based server and
one or more designated recipients, and to be capable of transmitting
information related to a time and a position associated with the at least a
portion of the processed data. Ex. 1001, 32:1–9. Claim 7 depends from
claim 5, and adds the same limitation to claim 5. Compare id. at 30:15–23,
with id. at 32:1–9.
Petitioner demonstrates how the combination of Lisogurski and
Carlson teaches these limitations. See Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1011, 15:43–
57, 18:11–15, 18:48–67, 20:53–60; Ex. 1009 ¶ 78; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 176–178).
As discussed in § II.F.2, supra, Lisogurski’s MPPM 326 is a remote device
that is wirelessly coupled to and receives an output signal from monitor
104/314 (i.e., a personal device) and that can be “coupled to a network to
enable the sharing of information with servers or other workstations,” (i.e., a
cloud-based server). Ex. 1011, 15:43–48, 18:49–65, Fig. 3. Carlson teaches
the server can be in a hospital’s network or a doctor’s network. Ex. 1009
¶ 78. Carlson further teaches a wearable sensor, such as Lisogurski’s
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

44
wearable sensor 102/312, can include a GPS receiver to enable it to
communicate a patient’s location to a monitoring hospital or doctor when the
patient’s physiological data in not within a predetermined range. Id.
Petitioner also provides sufficient reasoning, with a rational
underpinning, to combine the teachings of Lisogurski and Carlson in the
proposed manner. Specifically, Petitioner argues that a person skilled in the
art would have found it obvious “to modify Lisogurski in the manner
suggested by Carlson in order to use GPS data to track the location of a
person wearing a sensor” to be able to “identify where the person was in
case of emergency to allow any medical personnel at the central location to
find the person to provide assistance.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 178).
Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that claims 7 and 15 are unpatentable over
the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson.
4. Claims 8 and 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 13, and further requires the receiver to
be located a first distance from and to receive a first signal from a first one
of the plurality of light emitting diodes, and to be located a different, second
distance from and to receive a second signal from a second one of the
plurality of light emitting diodes. Ex. 1001, 32:10–15. Claim 8 depends
from claim 5, and adds the same limitations to claim 5. Compare id. at
30:24–30, with id. at 32:10–15.
Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski teaches these limitations. See
Pet. 60–62 (citing Ex. 1011, 7:38–8:3, 12:29–33, 17:39–45, Figs. 2A, 2B;
Ex. 1009 ¶ 78; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–183). Lisogurski teaches “[s]ensor unit 312
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

45
may include one or more light source[s] 316 for emitting light at one or
more wavelengths” and “[o]ne or more detector[s] 318.” Ex. 1011, 17:37–
42. Light sources 316 and detectors 318 may be arranged in “[a]ny suitable
configuration,” and “may be spaced apart.” Id. at 17:42–45. Light sources
316 can include “a high efficiency infrared (IR) LED” and one or more
“lower efficiency red LEDs.” Id. at 7:58–61. The red and IR LEDs can be
flashed on and off, during separate “Red light LED ‘on’ period[s] 202” and
“IR light ‘on’ period[s] 204.” Id. at 12:23–33, Figs. 2A, 2B. During these
periods, detector 318 “detect[s] the light that is reflected by or has traveled
through the subject’s tissue,” i.e., detector 318 detects a first signal from a
first LED (red light from red LED) and a second signal from a second LED
(IR light from IR LED). Id. at 12:29–33, 17:39–42, Figs. 2A, 2B.
Petitioner argues, and we agree, that because “[t]here are just two
options for how two LEDs can be spaced in relation to a detector: either
they are each the same distance from the detector or they are different
distances from it,” a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Lisogurski’s
disclosure that the sensors can be spaced apart would have “immediately
envisioned both options.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181, Kennametal, Inc.
v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Petitioner further argues, and we agree, that because “[t]here are just two
choices for how to space the LEDs from the detector . . . the selection of one
of those two ways is a simple design choice.” Id., n.8. Patent Owner does
not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable over
the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

46
5. Claims 9 and 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16, and further requires the receiver’s
output signal to be generated in part by comparing the first and second
signals. Ex. 1001, 32:16–17. Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and adds the
same limitations to claim 8. Compare id. at 30:31–32, with id. at 32:16–17.
Petitioner demonstrates how Lisogurski teaches this limitation. See
Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1011, 4:45–56; Ex. 1019, 769–770; Ex. 1003 ¶ 183). As
discussed in § II.F.4, supra, Lisogurski teaches separately detecting red light
(first signal) and IR light (second signal) at different points in a timing cycle,
and further teaches “comparing the intensities of two wavelengths at
different points in the pulse cycle . . . to estimate the blood oxygen saturation
of hemoglobin in arterial blood.” Ex.1011, 4:45-51. Specifically,
Lisogurski teaches “determin[ing] blood oxygen saturation using two
wavelengths of light and a ratio-of-ratios calculation.” Id. at 4:52–56.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that claims 9 and 17 are unpatentable over
the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson.
6. Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 5, and further requires the output signal
to include one or more physiological parameters, and the remote device to be
capable of storing a history of at least a portion of the one or more
physiological parameters over a specified period of time. Ex. 1001, 30:33–
57. As discussed in § II.B, supra, independent claim 5 is broader than
independent claim 13 because it does not require the measurement device to
output one or more physiological parameters and does not require the remote
device to be capable of storing a history of the one or more physiological
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

47
parameters over a specified period of time. Compare id. at 29:43–30:10,
with id. at 30:46–31:20. Claim 10 adds these limitations to claim 5, giving
claim 10 the same scope as claim 13. Id. at 30:33–37.
Petitioner relies on its analysis of claim 13 to teach the limitations of
claim 10. See Pet. 63. For the reasons explained in § II.F.2, supra,
Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that the combination
of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, and that
claim 10 is unpatentable over the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson.
G. Patentability of claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 over Lisogurski, Carlson,
and Mannheimer
Petitioner argues claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious
over the combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. See Pet. 63–
69. For the reasons stated below, we find Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence the unpatentability of these claims over
Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
1. Petitioner’s proposed combination
Petitioner proposes combining Lisogurski’s physiological monitoring
system shown in Figures 1 and 3, in which sensor 102/312 wirelessly
communicates with monitor 104/314, with Carlson’s teachings regarding
pulsing an LED at a frequency that increases signal-to-noise in a wireless
pulse oximeter sensor as discussed in § II.F.1, supra. We agree that a person
skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these references for
the reasons discussed there. Petitioner further proposes combining
Lisogurski and Carlson with the teachings of Mannheimer to detect light at a
receiver placed first and second distances from first and second LEDs. See
Pet. 64–66 (citing/quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 192–194; Ex. 1008, 3:25–35, 3:38–40,
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

48
5:1–5, 5:58–62, 6:17–36, 6:66–7:4. Figs. 1B, 2, 4; Ex. 1011, 17:45, 19:42–
50, 44:43–48).
Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning
to combine the teachings of Mannheimer with the teachings of Lisogurski
and Carlson. Mannheimer, like Lisogurski and Carlson, is directed to a
“pulse oximetery monitoring and measurement system” that “uses one or
more LEDs to alternately emit red and infrared light.” Pet. 64 (citing Ex.
1008, 6:17–36, 6:66–7:4. Figs. 2, 4). Lisogurski teaches “light is attenuated
differently depending on the tissue” with which it interacts, including skin,
and Mannheimer teaches a method for removing interference from skin “by
using signals detected from LEDs spaced different distances from a
detector.” Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1011, 19:42–50, 44:43–48; Ex. 1008, 3:25–
35, 5:1–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 193).
Lisogurski teaches using “multiple light sources and detectors, which
may be spaced apart,” but does not “identify the spacing that should be
used” or the reason to space the detectors apart. Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex.
1011, 17:45, Ex. 1003 ¶ 194). Mannheimer, by contrast, teaches a specific
configuration of light sources and detectors consisting of a single detector
spaced distances r1 and r2 from red and IR LEDs, respectively, and using that
configuration to measure light absorption attributable to subdermal layer 12,
a tissue layer of interest, based on r1 and r2. Ex. 1008, 3:25–35, 3:38–40,
5:58–62, 6:17–36, Figs. 1B. Mannheimer teaches this configuration “differs
from the conventional single detector pulse oximetry algorithm in that the
skin layer signals are excluded from the measurement.” Id. at 5:1–5. Thus,
Petitioner demonstrates that a person skilled in the art would have
incorporated Mannheimer’s teachings into Lisogurski to allow Lisogurski to
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

49
measure light absorption from a specific layer of tissue by removing or
excluding the light absorption due to surface tissue layers. Patent Owner
does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
2. Claims 8 and 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 13, and further requires the receiver to
be located a first distance from and to receive a first signal from a first one
of the plurality of light emitting diodes, and to be located a different, second
distance from and to receive a second signal from a second one of the
plurality of light emitting diodes. Ex. 1001, 32:10–15. Claim 8 depends
from claim 5, and adds the same limitations to claim 5. Compare id. at
30:24–30, with id. at 32:10–15.
Petitioner demonstrates how Mannheimer teaches this limitation by
disclosing detector 24 receiving first signal 18 from first LED 17 located
first distance r1 from detector 24, and receiving second signal 22 from
second LED 16 located second distances r2 from detector 24. Pet. 66–67
(citing Ex. 1008, 3:18–24, 5:58–62. Fig. 1B; Ex. 1003 ¶ 198). Patent Owner
does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 14–32.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable over
the combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
3. Claims 9 and 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16, and further requires the receiver’s
output signal to be generated in part by comparing the first and second
signals. Ex. 1001, 32:16–17. Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and adds the
same limitations to claim 8. Compare id. at 30:31–32, with id. at 32:16–17.
Petitioner demonstrates how Mannheimer teaches this limitation by
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

50
“calculating an arterial oxygen saturation level” related to “the arterial blood
saturation of . . . deeper tissue” by calculating “a ratio R from I1 and I2,”
where I1 is a first intensity “corresponding to the [first] signal 18 detected
from light emitted by [first LED] E1” and I2 is a second intensity
“corresponding to the [second] signal 2[2] detected from light emitted by
[second LED] E2.” Pet. 68–69 (quoting/citing Ex. 1008, 2:16–18, 3:35–5:9,
5:23–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202–204). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See
PO Resp. 14–32.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that claims 9 and 17 are unpatentable over
the combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
III. CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner
Reply, and Patent Owner Sur-Reply. We have considered all of the
evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, and have
weighed and assessed the entirety of the evidence as a whole.
We determine, on this record, that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence that claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 of the ’533
patent are unpatentable over Lisogurski and Carlson.8 We further determine

8 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged
claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the
issuance of this decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April
2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner
Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial
Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner
chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the
challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

51
that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims
8, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’533 patent are unpatentable over Lisogurski, Carlson,
and Mannheimer.
IV. ORDER
It is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 of the ’533 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lisogurski and
Carlson;
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’533 patent
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lisogurski,
Carlson, and Mannheimer; and
FURTHER ORDERED that this Decision is final, and a party to this
proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must comply with the
notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory
notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).

Claims 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)
/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not Shown
Unpatentable
5, 7–10,
13, 15–17
103 Lisogurski, Carlson 5, 7–10, 13,
15–17

8, 9, 16,
17
103 Lisogurski, Carlson,
Mannheimer
8, 9, 16, 17
Overall
Outcome
5, 7–10, 13,
15–17

IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2
____________

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring

I concur with the panel decision, and write separately to express
additional reasons I find Lisogurski alone or in combination with Carlson
teaches the pulse rate limitation.
A. Lisogurski alone
As noted in § II.F.2.d(1) of the panel decision, Petitioner contends that
Lisogurski alone teaches the pulse rate limitation. See Pet. 35–36. Although
Patent Owner disputes this contention, Patent Owner nevertheless states that
Lisogurski teaches “three different techniques for improving SNR,”
including “by modulating the light signal to correlate with ‘physiological
pulses’ such as a ‘cardiac pulse.’” PO Resp. at 15. Petitioner argues this
statement is an admission that Lisogurski teaches the pulse rate limitation,
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

2
e.g., by increasing the LED pulse rate to match an increased cardiac cycle
rate. See Pet. Reply 11.
I agree. Patent Owner’s statement characterizing Lisogurski is an
admission by a party-opponent under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which
apply to this proceeding. See 37 CFR § 42.62(a). Petitioner offers the
statement “against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) (2014); see
also Pet. Reply 11 (“Omni admitted that cardiac cycle modulation is a
technique for increasing SNR.”). The statement appeared in Patent Owner’s
principal brief and was made by Patent Owner’s designated counsel, who
was appointed by Patent Owner “to transact all business . . . associated with
any inter partes review . . . before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board
pertaining to the above-captioned [’533] patent.” PO Resp. 15, 32; Paper 8,
1–2; Paper 9, 2. Thus, the statement was made by an “agent or employee on
a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.” Fed. R.
Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) (2014). This makes the statement an admission that
Lisogurski’s light source is configured to increase signal-to-noise by
increasing the LED firing rate to match an increased cardiac cycle rate. See
Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., 809 F. App’x 990, 1000
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“It is well established . . . that a statement made by a party
in an individual or representative capacity may be offered as evidence
against that party.”).
Given the disclosures in Lisogurski identified by Patent Owner and
discussed in the panel decision at § II.F.2.d(1), particularly Lisogurski’s
disclosure that modulating an LED drive signal to match “particular
segments of a respiratory cycle may provide an increased signal-to-noise
ratio,” I find Patent Owner’s admission that Lisogurski teaches “improving
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

3
SNR” by “modulating the light signal to correlate with ‘physiological
pulses’ such as a ‘cardiac pulse’” to be credible evidence that Lisogurski
teaches increasing signal-to-noise by increasing the LED pulse rate to match
an increased cardiac cycle rate. PO Resp. at 15; Ex. 1011, 25:66–26:14; see
also Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164, 1172 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,
455 U.S. 1021 (1982) (finding admissions are credible evidence because “an
agent or servant who speaks on any matter within the scope of his agency or
employment during the existence of that relationship, is unlikely to make
statements damaging to his principal or employer unless those statements are
true.”).
B. Lisogurski and Carlson
As also noted in § II.F.2.d(1) of the panel decision, Petitioner also
argues that the combination of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches the pulse rate
limitation. See Pet. 37–39. In our Institution Decision, we made a
preliminary finding that Petitioner was reasonably likely to show how the
combination of Lisogurski and Carlson teaches the pulse rate limitation
because Carlson teaches it. See Dec. Inst. 34–35. Specifically, we found:
Carlson teaches that “standard pulsoximeter sensors suffer from
signal instability and insufficient robustness versus
environmental disturbances,” and provides, as an example,
disturbances caused when a person wearing a sensor
experiences alternating cycles of sunshine and shade “at a
certain frequency” while walking or driving along a tree-lined
avenue. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 4, 68. Carlson teaches removing such
disturbances by pulsing the sensor LEDs at a frequency that is
“outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight[9] and of ambient

9 Carlson identifies the “frequency spectrum” of sunlight as 0 Hz. See
Ex. 1009, Fig. 7b. We understand this passage of Carlson to be referring to
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

4
light” in order to “increas[e] significantly the Signal-to-Noise.”
Id. ¶ 69. Carlson does not teach pulsing the LEDs at any
particular frequency, but instead teaches pulsing at some
frequency f0 and “using AC-Coupling or Lock-In Amplification
. . . to temporarily modulate the optical radiation of the LED at
the carrier frequency f0 in order to shift the power spectrum of
the pulsoximeter signals into a higher frequency range where
environmental optical radiation is unlikely.” Id. ¶¶ 65, 69.
Although Carlson gives a particular example of pulsing the
LEDs at 1000 Hz, that example pertains to sampling pulsed
LED light that has been transmitted through or reflected from a
sample in the presence of 0 to 120 Hz noise. Id. ¶ 69. Carlson
more generally teaches “shift[ing] the power spectrum of the
pulsoximeter signals into a higher frequency range where
environmental optical radiation is unlikely.”
Dec. Inst. 34–35 (footnote in original).
Patent Owner disagrees with that preliminary analysis, arguing
“Carlson does not disclose increasing a pulse rate of a light source to
increase SNR as claimed.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2122 ¶ 84). Patent
Owner’s argument is two-fold. First, Patent Owner argues that Carlson only
teaches “modulating the light source at a chosen single, fixed pulse rate, not
increasing the pulse rate.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2122 ¶ 79). Second,
Patent Owner argues switching “from an unmodulated light source to a
temporary modulated light source at a chosen, unvarying pulse rate” does
not teach “increasing [the light source’s] pulse rate.” PO Sur-Reply 13.

the frequency of alternating periods of sunshine and shade, rather than to the
actual frequency spectrum of sunlight, which is quite broad. The frequency
spectrum of alternating periods of sunshine and shade would be 0 Hz when a
person is standing in continual sunshine or continual shade, but would
increase when travelling down a tree-lined street based on the spacing
between trees and the speed of travel. Id. ¶ 68.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

5
Petitioner replies that Carlson teaches “increasing the SNR of a
pulsoximeter to improve its performance in the presence of noise, such as
ambient light.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1009 ¶ 2). Petitioner
argues that Carlson’s “device is designed to address changing
environmental conditions” because Carlson teaches “the amount of ambient
light varies over time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 7). For example, Carlson
teaches its “device ‘temporarily modulate[s] the amplitude of the optical
radiation of, e.g., the LED at a carrier frequency fc in order to shift the
power spectrum of the pulsoximeter signals into a higher frequency range
where environmental optical radiation is unlikely.” Id. at 14 (citing
Ex. 1009 ¶ 20). Petitioner interprets this to mean the “device will change
how its LEDs pulse based on the presence and characteristics of ambient
light at any particular moment in time,” and will do so by “shifting the
frequency of an LEDs emission ‘to a higher frequency range.’” Id.
Petitioner argues its interpretation of Carlson is supported by claims
10–13 of Carlson, which recite “a light source amplitude modulating means
to modulate the frequency of the emitted light” that can “shift the frequency
of the emitted light.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1009, 610 (claims 10–13)).
Moreover, Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause the nature of ambient light
changes over time, it would be natural to interpret Carlson as describing
multiple pulse frequencies.” Id. at 16. Petitioner cites the testimony of Dr.
MacFarlane, Patent Owner’s expert, to support this contention. Id.
According to Dr. MacFarlane, “[b]ecause sunlight variations and the weather

10 The citation here is to Carlson’s page number and claim number because
the claims do not have separately numbered paragraphs.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

6
are constantly changing environmental conditions, it would be impractical,
as a matter of common sense, to have the user manually reconfigure the
LED pulse rate as conditions change.” Ex. 1060, 34:5–35:7.
Patent Owner argues we should ignore claims 10–13 of Carlson
because Petitioner “never made this argument in its Petition.” PO Sur-Reply
14. Patent Owner further argues we should ignore Dr. MacFarlane’s
“common sense” testimony because Petitioner “presented no ‘common
sense’ argument in its Petition.” Id. at 15.
As an initial matter, I disagree that the evidence presented in
Petitioner’s Reply should be ignored. Petitioner argued—in the Petition—
that Carlson teaches increasing the pulse rate of an LED. See Pet. 38
(“Figure 8 of Carlson shows increasing the operating frequency F0 of the
LEDs as compared to Fig. 7c,” and “[t]his frequency shift . . . corresponds to
increasing the ‘pulse rate’ of the emitter” LEDs). Although Petitioner
supports this argument with new evidence in its Reply, the Reply does not
raise a new issue or argument. See Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World
Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from
elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Moreover, the
new evidence cited in Petitioner’s Reply can be considered because Patent
Owner had an adequate opportunity to address it in its Sur-Reply. See In re
NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “an opportunity
to respond was needed when the petitioner . . . newly pointed to a previously
unmentioned portion of the . . . prior-art patent, even though it had earlier
focused extensively on other portions of that prior-art patent”).
Upon consideration of all the evidence and argument presented by
Petitioner and Patent Owner, discussed above, I am persuaded that a person
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

7
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Carlson to teach a light
source configured to increase signal-to-noise in the presence of changing
environmental conditions by increasing the modulation frequency or pulse
rate of the light source. I disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that
Carlson only chooses a “fixed” or “predetermined” value for the LED pulse
rate or modulation frequency at design-time. See PO Resp. 17–27, PO Sur-
Reply 11–13. The only evidence Patent Owner offers for this contention is
Carlson’s statement that the modulation frequency is “chosen,” and Dr.
MacFarlane’s opinion that this means a “fixed” value for the modulation
frequency is chosen at design-time. Id.; see also Ex. 2122 ¶¶ 75–79. This
evidence is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Carlson does not expressly
disclose choosing a “fixed” modulation frequency at design-time. Second,
Dr. MacFarlane’s testimony to that effect is not credible in view of Dr.
MacFarlane’s testimony regarding how a person skilled in the art would
design a light source for use in changing lighting conditions.
Carlson’s only teaching about choosing the modulation frequency of
the light source is the following: “[I]t is therefore proposed to emit light by
the LEDs not as current or continuous light but as pulsed light. The [pulse]
frequency is chosen in such a way that it is outside the frequency spectrum
of sunlight and of ambient light which, according to FIG 7b, is in the range
of above approximately 1000 Hz.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 69. Although this passage of
Carlson teaches choosing a 1000 Hz pulse rate or modulation frequency, that
choice is based on the specific power spectrum of the environmental optical
radiation that is shown in Figure 7b. Id. But Carlson does not teach that the
power spectrum shown in Figure 7b is fixed. To the contrary, Carlson
teaches “[t]he power spectrum of environmental optical radiation strongly
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

8
varies as a function o[f] time and place where the pulsoximeter is used.” Id.
¶ 7 (emphasis added). Thus, a person skilled in the art would read Carlson
as choosing an appropriate modulation frequency at run-time based on the
power spectrum of the environmental optical radiation existing at run-time.
That is, a person skilled in the art would read Carlson to teach choosing a
modulation frequency at run-time that “shift[s] the power spectrum of the
pulsoximeter signals into a higher frequency range where environmental
optical radiation is unlikely” because the “power spectrum of [the]
environmental optical radiation strongly varies as a function o[f] time and
place where the pulsoximeter is used,” i.e., as a function of run-time values
of time and place. Id. ¶¶ 7, 65 (emphasis added).
Carlson’s claims support this interpretation. Claim 10 recites a “light
source modulating means to shift the frequency of the emitted light.” Id. at 6
(emphasis added). Claim 11 recites “a light source amplitude modulating
means to modulate the frequency of the emitted light in a frequency range
substantially outside of [the] frequency of noise and/or environmental
signals.” Id. (emphasis added). Given Carlson’s teachings that the
frequency spectrum of the environmental optical radiation strongly depends
on the time and place where the pulsoximeter is used (i.e., run-time
conditions), claims 10 and 11 teach a person skilled in the art that Carlson’s
modulation frequency fc or pulse rate is “chosen” at run-time to allow the
device to operate outside the frequency range of the power spectrum of the
environmental optical radiation that exists at run-time, and that the pulse rate
can be “shifted” to allow the device to continue to operate outside the
frequency range of that power spectrum as that frequency range varies with
the time and place of pulsoximeter use. Id. ¶¶ 7, 65; id. at 6 (claims 10, 11).
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

9
In fact, in the course of explaining how the light source in the ’533
patent “achieve[s] higher SNR despite ‘variations due to sunlight’ and the
‘effects of weather, such as clouds and rain,’” Dr. MacFarlane provides a
coherent explanation of why a person skilled in the art would read Carlson to
teach choosing a suitable pulse rate or modulation frequency at run-time
rather than a fixed pulse rate or modulation frequency at design-time.
Ex. 2122 ¶ 36. According to Dr. MacFarlane, the light source disclosed in
the ’533 patent increases signal-to-noise by increasing its pulse rate or
modulation frequency “[b]ecause sunlight variations and the weather are
constantly changing environmental conditions, [and] it would be
impractical—as a matter of common sense—to have the user manually
reconfigure the LED pulse rate as conditions change to achieve higher
SNR.” Id. (emphasis added). Dr. MacFarlane testifies that a person skilled
in the art would never “ask[] a consumer to learn what SNR is and force that
consumer to -- adjust it as a cloud moves across the sun and then back
again.” Ex. 1060, 36:1–7. That, Dr. MacFarlane says, “would be
impractical and not a very nice product design to -- to -- to force your user to
do that. And that seems -- that seems a matter of common sense, to me, but,
again, that’s from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
at 36:9–13.
To understand why this testimony supports Petitioner’s interpretation
of Carlson, it is necessary to first explore how Dr. MacFarlane finds support
for the pulse rate limitation in columns 5, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’533 patent,
and two publications incorporated into the ’533 patent in column 1. See Ex.
2121 ¶¶ 24–25, 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:33–37, 1:40–42, 5:11–15, 16:54–
58, 19:67–20:2; Ex. 2120 ¶ 79; Ex. 2121 ¶ 45). As discussed in § II.D.3 of
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

10
the panel decision, the passage in column 5 of the ’533 patent identically
supports the pulse rate limitation because it repeats it verbatim. Compare
Ex. 1001, 5:11–15, with id. at 30:56–60. It does not, however, illuminate the
meaning of the limitation because the passage was added to the Specification
at the same time the limitation was added to then pending claim 14, which
issued as claim 13, and no explanation was provided to indicate how the
originally filed Specification supports the limitation. See Ex. 1002, 495–
496, 502–503, 505–507.
The remaining passages cited by Dr. MacFarlane do not illuminate the
meaning of the pulse rate limitation because they do not disclose a light
source configured to increase signal-to-noise by increasing its pulse rate.
For example, although the passage from column 19, line 67 to column 20,
line 2 states that LEDs can be operated in “continuous wave or pulsed
mode,” it does not state that the pulse rate can be increased to increase
signal-to-noise.11 Ex. 1001, 19:67–20:2. Similarly, although the passage in
the PCT publication incorporated by reference in column 112 states the
“active illuminator” achieves high signal-to-noise using “modulation and
lock-in techniques” whereby “the light source may be modulated, and then
the detection system would be synchronized with the light source,” it does
not state that signal-to-noise is increased by increasing the modulation

11 Carlson also discloses that LEDs can be operated in either continuous or
pulsed mode. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 69 (proposing to emit LED light “not as
current or continuous light but as pulsed light”).
12 This disclosure is nearly identical to the disclosure in the ’533 patent.
Compare Ex. 2120 ¶ 75 with Ex. 1001, 16:54–65.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

11
frequency or pulse rate of the light source.13 Ex. 2120 ¶ 75. Likewise,
although the passage in the published patent application incorporated by
reference in column 1 states “continuous-wave systems emit light at
approximately constant intensity or modulated at low frequencies, such as
0.1–100 kHz,” it does not state that the modulation frequency or pulse rate
of the light source is increased to increase signal-to-noise.14 Ex. 2121 ¶ 45.
In sum, to conclude the ’533 patent’s “active illuminator” increases signal-
to-noise by increasing its pulse rate, Dr. MacFarlane ultimately relies on the
“common sense” and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
rather than on any actual disclosure in the ’533 patent.
As discussed above, Carlson also teaches that sunlight and ambient
light can interfere with a pulsoximeter signal in a manner that varies with
time and place, and that the resulting interference can be reduced to increase
signal-to-noise by modulating the pulsoximeter’s LED. See Ex, 1009 ¶¶ 2,
7, 65, 67. For example, Carlson is “particularly concerned with increasing
the technical performance of pulsoximetry in terms of quality and robustness
of the measurement signal versus environmental disturbances.” Ex. 1009
¶ 2. Carlson teaches the modulation “frequencies of sunlight and ambient

13 Carlson also discloses increasing signal-to-noise by “using AC-Coupling
or Lock-In Amplification (synchronous detection) to temporarily modulate
the optical radiation of the LED.” Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65, 69. According to
Carlson, lock-in detection techniques are “well known out of the state of the
art.” Id. ¶ 65.
14 Carlson also discloses that LEDs can be pulsed at different pulse rates.
See Ex. 1009 ¶ 69 (disclosing the LED pulse rate “F0 could be e.g., as
mentioned, 1000 Hz” or “can be chosen at any other frequency, as e.g.
2000 Hz or even higher.”).
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

12
light” are sources of interference because they are within “the range of
frequencies of physiological signals.” Id. ¶ 67. Carlson teaches “[t]he
power spectrum of [this] environmental optical radiation strongly varies as a
function o[f] time and place where the pulsoximeter is used.” Id. ¶ 7
(emphasis added). This strong variation means the “detected optical power
varies in a large [frequency] range, making difficult the analog and digital
signal processing of the primary sensor signal.” Id. Carlson’s solution is to
“temporarily modulate the . . . LED at the carrier frequency fc in order to
shift the power spectrum of the pulsoximeter signals into a higher frequency
range where environmental optical radiation is unlikely.” Id. ¶ 65. Carlson
does this by choosing modulation frequency fc “in such a way that it is
outside the frequency spectrum of sunlight and ambient light” using a light
source modulating means that “shift[s] the frequency of the emitted light”
and “modulate[s] the frequency of the emitted light in a frequency range
substantially outside of the frequency of noise and/or environmental
signals.” Id. ¶ 69 (emphasis added); id. at 6 (claims 10, 11).
Yet, despite all of Carlson’s teachings about the variable nature of the
interference caused by sunlight and how that interference can be reduced by
modulating the LEDs at a pulse rate or modulation frequency that exceeds
the varying frequency spectrum of the interference, and despite Dr.
MacFarlane’s testimony that a person skilled in the art would never “ask[] a
consumer to learn what SNR is and force that consumer to -- adjust it as a
cloud moves across the sun and then back again,” Dr. MacFarlane opines
that a person skilled in the art would read Carlson as choosing a “fixed”
pulse rate at design-time rather than a “suitable” pulse rate at run-time that
reduces the actual interference seen at run-time. See Ex. 1060, 36:1–7l; see
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

13
also Ex. 2122 ¶¶ 75–79. That is, Dr. MacFarlane opines that a person
skilled in the art would read Carlson to teach choosing a “fixed” pulse rate at
design-time that either will or will not improve signal-to-noise because it
either will or will not shift the pulsoximeter power spectrum beyond the
power spectrum of the run-time environmental noise. This is not a credible
reading of Carlson. A more credible reading is that a person skilled in the
art would read Carlson to teach choosing a suitable pulse rate at run-time
that will improve the signal-to-noise ratio because it will shift the
pulsoximeter power spectrum beyond the power spectrum of the run-time
environmental noise. Moreover, Carlson’s pulsoximeter will update its
choice of pulse rate during operation, as needed, as the power spectrum of
the environmental noise varies with the time and place of the pulsoximeter’s
use, e.g., by increasing the LED pulse rate.
In addition to disagreeing with Patent Owner’s contention that
Carlson only teaches switching from continuous light to light modulated at
1000 Hz for the reasons explained above, I also disagree with Patent
Owner’s contention that such switching does not increase the pulse rate of
the light source. Implicit in Patent Owner’s argument is the assumption that
a light source emitting continuous light does not have a pulse rate or
modulation frequency that can be increased. This assumption is contrary to
the teachings of Carlson.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

14
Figure 7b of Carlson is reproduced below.

Figure 7b is “a diagram showing [the] power spectrum of ambient light.”
Ex. 1009 ¶ 43. In the exemplary power spectrum shown in Figure 7b, the
noise contribution due to “[s]unlight is 0 Hz.” Id. ¶ 67, Fig. 7b. The power
spectrum shown in Figure 7b is exemplary because Carlson more generally
teaches the noise contribution due to sunlight depends on its modulation
frequency, i.e., how frequently a pulsoximeter experiences alternating
periods of sunlight and shade. See id. ¶ 68 (“Another serious possibility is
caused by a tree avenue when driving along the trees. Sunlight is then
received, e.g., by the pulsoximeter sensor at a certain frequency, which
means that every time when passing a tree, sunlight is attenuated and
between trees sunlight is influencing the measurement of the pulsoximetric
sensor.”) (emphasis added).
In our Institution Decision, we made a preliminary finding that Figure
7b of Carlson teaches sunlight contributes noise at 0 Hz when pulsoximeter
measurements are taken in either continuous sunshine or continuous shade.
See Dec. Inst. 34, n.7 (“The frequency spectrum of alternating periods of
sunshine and shade would be 0 Hz when a person is standing in continual
sunshine or continual shade, but would increase when travelling down a
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

15
tree-lined street based on the spacing between trees and the speed of
travel.”) (emphases added). Patent Owner does not dispute this finding,
despite having had two opportunities to do so. See PO Resp. 14–32; PO
Sur-Reply 11–16. Carlson’s teaching that continuous sunlight contributes
noise at a frequency of 0 Hz is a teaching that continuous sunlight has a
modulation frequency of 0 Hz, i.e., that it is not modulated or that its
intensity does not periodically vary between sunshine and shade. That is,
Carlson teaches that continuous light has a modulation frequency or pulse
rate of 0 Hz. Therefore, even under Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of
Carlson, in which Carlson increases signal-to-noise by switching from
emitting continuous light to emitting light modulated at 1000 Hz, Carlson
teaches increasing signal-to-noise by increasing the modulation frequency or
pulse rate of the light source from 0 Hz to 1000 Hz.
IPR2019-00916
Patent 9,651,533 B2

16

For PETITIONER:
Jeffrey Kushan
Ching-Lee Fukuda
Thomas Broughan
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
jkushan@sidley.com
clfukuda@sidley.com
tbroughan@sidley.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Thomas Lewry
John LeRoy
Robert Tuttle
John Halan
Christopher Smith
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
tlewry@brookskushman.com
jleroy@brookskushman.com
rtuttle@brookskushman.com
jhalan@brookskushman.com
csmith@brookskushman.com