Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01890/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Appellant
Masimo Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC.,

Appellant

v.

MASIMO CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1890

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01523.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2024

______________________ 

THOMAS GREGORY SPRANKLING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO,

LAUREN ANN DEGNAN, CHRISTOPHER DRYER, WALTER KARL 

RENNER, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC. 

 STEPHEN C. JENSEN, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

JAROM D. KESLER, JOSEPH R. RE, JOSHUA STOWELL. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024
2 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Apple Inc. appeals a final written decision of the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board, which determined that claims 1–7, 9–

18, and 20–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703 were not unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.

BACKGROUND 

A. U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703

Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) is the assignee of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,457,703 (“’703 patent”), which relates to reducing power consumption of a pulse oximeter. ’703 patent, Abstract. The patent discloses regulating power 

consumption by intermittently changing the number of 

samples received and processed by the oximeter. Id. at 6:9–

11. Based on physiological measurements and signal statistics, the oximeter determines whether to increase or decrease sampling. Id. at 6:25–39. In one embodiment, the 

patent discloses controlling sampling by intermittently 

changing the duty cycle of the current supplied to drive the 

LEDs that project light onto the patient’s tissue. Id. at 

5:55–66, 6:56–7:8. 

Claim 1 is representative and recites, 

1. A method of managing power consumption during continuous patient monitoring by adjusting behavior of a patient monitor, the method 

comprising: 

driving one or more light sources configured to emit 

light into tissue of a monitored patient; 

receiving one or more signals from one or more detectors configured to detect said light after attenuation by said tissue; 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 3

continuously operating a patient monitor at a lower 

power consumption level to determine measurement values for one or more physiological parameters of a patient; 

comparing processing characteristics to a predetermined threshold; and 

when said processing characteristics pass said 

threshold, transitioning to continuously operating 

said patient monitor at a higher power consumption level, 

wherein said continuously operating at said lower 

power consumption level comprises reducing activation of an attached sensor, 

said sensor positioning said light sources and said 

detectors proximate said tissue.

Id. at 11:32–51 (emphasis added). 

B. Prior Art References 

Two references are relevant to this appeal: Diab (U.S. 

Patent No. 5,632,272) and Amano (U.S. Patent

No. 6,293,915). 

Diab discloses a pulse oximeter that includes a sensor, 

a digital signal processing system, and a display. Diab, 

34:11–26, Fig. 11. The digital signal processing system 

provides several outputs to be displayed, including “blood 

oxygen saturation, heart rate, and a clean plethysmographic waveform.” Id. at 34:26–28. Within the digital signal processing system, as shown in Figure 20, heart rate 

module 410 includes motion artifact suppression module 

580. Id. at 47:30–38, Fig. 20 (below). 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024
4 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

In case of motion, motion artifact suppression module 

580 suppresses motion artifacts, namely, artifacts introduced by patient movement that may distort the measured 

signal. Id. at 3:6–9, 47:55–56. “If motion is not detected, 

spectral estimation on the signals is carried out directly 

without motion artifact suppression.” Id. at 47:52–54. 

Amano discloses a wristwatch type of pulse wave detector mounted on a finger. See Amano, Figs. 37A and 37B

(below). 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 5

In the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, pulse wave 

detecting section 10 detects a pulse waveform and outputs 

the detected signal to body movement component eliminating section 30. Id. at 21:5–8, Fig. 1 (excerpt below). 

The device also includes body movement detecting section 20 and waveform treating section 21. Id. at 21:9–12. 

If no body movement is present, the operations of waveform 

treating section 21 and body movement component eliminating section 30 are suspended. Id. at 21:65–22:2. According to Amano, this suspension reduces the power 

consumption of the device. Id. at 22:4–6. 

C. Procedural History

After Masimo sued Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for infringing 

the ’703 patent, Apple petitioned for inter partes review 

(“IPR”) of claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 of the ’703 patent. 

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) construed the claimed “processing characteristics” as “determined from a signal received from one or more detectors

configured to detect light.” J.A. 14. Based on this construction, the Board assessed Apple’s eight obviousness 

grounds, each of which addressed either or both of Diab and 

Amano. Ultimately, the Board concluded that Apple failed 

to show obviousness of the challenged claims. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2024
6 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

Apple appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Claim construction is a question of law with underlying 

questions of fact. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., 

Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review de 

novo the Board’s ultimate claim construction and its supporting determinations that are based on intrinsic evidence. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 

952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Subsidiary factual 

findings involving extrinsic evidence are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. 

We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determinations on a de novo basis and any underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 

203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The scope and content of the prior art and whether a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would have been motivated to combine teachings 

in the prior art are both questions of fact. Intel Corp. v. 

PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 

2023). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Apple challenges the Board’s construction of “processing characteristics” as too limiting. Apple also raises 

two arguments relating to the prior art references. First, 

Apple contends that the Board failed to address its alternative argument as to Diab’s teachings. Second, Apple argues that the Board applied an inherency standard to 

Apple’s obviousness argument based on the combination of 

Diab and Amano. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 6 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 7

A. “Processing Characteristics”

The Board concluded that “in the context of the ’703 

patent, ‘processing characteristics’ are determined from a 

signal received from one or more detectors configured to 

detect light.” J.A. 14. The Board rejected Apple’s expansive construction interpreting this term to encompass any 

information that is processed. Id. To the Board, such a 

“sweeping premise” is inconsistent with the ’703 patent. 

Id. We agree with the Board. 

Both the claim language and the specification support 

the Board’s claim construction. In the claim language, 

“processing characteristics” refers to the processing of “one 

or more signals from one or more detectors configured to 

detect” light attenuated by the tissue. See ’703 patent,

11:32–51. These signals represent the only signals received and processed in the claimed patient-monitoring invention. Throughout the specification, “processing 

characteristics” are described as being determined based 

on the signals received from the light detectors, the sole 

source of signals that are then processed. See, e.g., id. at 

5:11–23, 5:40–48, Figs. 3 & 4. Although the specification 

does not state the term in explicit definitional format, the 

Board’s reading of the term is consistent with how the invention is described in the specification. 

Contrary to Apple’s contention, the additional limitations to “processing characteristics” recited in dependent 

claims 4 and 8 do not support Apple’s proposed expansive 

construction. The additional limitations1 further define 

1 Dependent claim 4 recites that the “processing 

characteristics comprise signal characteristics from one or 

more light sensitive detectors.” ’703 patent, 11:59–61. Dependent 8 claim recites that the “processing characteristics 

include determining an estimate of current power 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2024
8 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

and restrict “processing characteristics” to a subset of the 

resulting downstream data generated from processing the 

received signals. They do not support reading “processing 

characteristics” to encompass information untethered to 

the underlying processing of the invention as described in 

the patent. Apple’s proposed construction improperly 

takes the term out of context of the patented invention and 

lacks support. For these reasons, we hold that the Board 

correctly construed the term “processing characteristics” as 

“determined from a signal received from one or more detectors configured to detect light.” See J.A. 14. 

B. Apple’s Partial-Suspension Argument

Apple asserts that the Board failed to grasp its alternative argument that Diab teaches suspending a subset of 

the operations of its motion artifact suppression module. 

Appellant Br. 41–45. In Apple’s view, this partial suspension, like its argument based on the suspension of the entire module, would read on the claimed limitation of 

reducing power consumption. Id. at 41–42. 

We note that Apple failed to raise the purported partial-suspension argument before the Board. The record 

demonstrates that Apple raised a singular argument that

Diab teaches suspending its motion artifact suppression 

module if there is no motion. Apple did not identify a distinct alternative argument relying on suspending a subset 

of components within that module. In its petition, Apple

contended that Diab “teaches not executing the motion artifact suppression module 580” and that it would have been 

obvious to “suspend and not execute” operations of that 

module if there is no motion. J.A. 85. Apple’s argument

focused on suspending operations of the motion artifact 

suppression module altogether. The petition made no 

consumption and comparing said estimate with a target 

power consumption.” Id. at 12:1–4. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 8 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 9

mention of suspending a subset of the operations performed 

by the motion artifact suspension module. 

To show that it made the partial-suspension argument

before the Board, Apple cites several pages from its petitioner’s reply and certain statements made at the oral 

hearing. Appellant Br. 44. To the extent Apple raised a 

new argument in its reply or at the oral hearing, such argument is untimely and improper.2 See Intelligent BioSys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). 

We hold that Apple failed to properly present to the 

Board the partial-suspension argument it now raises on 

appeal. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377–

78 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Absent exceptional circumstances, arguments not properly presented before the Board are generally not considered on appeal. In re Google Tech. 

Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We find 

no exceptional circumstances here justifying exercising our 

discretion to hear Apple’s forfeited argument. See id. 

C. Motivation to Combine 

Apple also contends that the Board improperly applied 

an inherency standard when evaluating Apple’s motivation-to-combine theory. Apple argues that the Board required it to show that suspending Diab’s motion artifact 

suppression module based on Amano would “necessarily” 

or “inherently” reduce power consumption. Appellant 

2 A review of Apple’s citations to its reply shows that 

it continued to argue suspending “all the operations of the 

motion artifact suppression module 580” and that “a 

POSITA would have found it obvious not to execute operations of [that module].” J.A. 1689–90. The reply did not 

raise an alternative argument based on suspending a subset of the operations. Apple’s reliance on counsel statements at the oral hearing fails for similar reasons. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 9 Filed: 01/12/2024
10 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

Br. 56–57. We disagree. Rather than applying an “inherency” standard, the Board addressed Apple’s reasoning for 

combining Diab and Amano and explained why it found Apple’s arguments unpersuasive. 

During the IPR, the Board addressed and found unpersuasive Apple’s proposed reasoning to combine Diab with

Amano. J.A. 28–32. The Board explained that although 

both relate to physiological monitoring, the two references

“disclose different processing algorithms that result in different outputs that are not directly applicable to each 

other.” J.A. 29. Given these differences, the Board found 

Apple failed to adequately explain why one skilled in the 

art would have applied Amano’s teaching of suspending 

certain processing to Diab’s motion artifact suppression 

module. J.A. 30. 

The Board further addressed Apple’s contention that 

applying Amano’s teaching to Diab’s motion artifact suppression module “would” reduce power consumption in 

Diab. Id. This “supposed power reduction is the foundational reason” Apple advanced for combining the two references. J.A. 31–32. But the Board found that Masimo 

persuasively showed that Amano’s “power reduction may 

not occur in Diab’s differently structured and configured 

system.” J.A. 31. To the Board, even assuming one were 

to apply Amano’s teachings to suspend Diab’s motion artifact suppression module, it may not reduce power consumption in Diab’s system. Id. The Board also considered 

the parties’ expert testimony and found Masimo’s expert 

testimony more credible. Id. The Board therefore rejected 

Apple’s proffered premise for finding a motivation to combine. We conclude that the Board’s finding of a lack of motivation to combine Diab and Amano is supported by 

substantial evidence. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 10 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 11

CONCLUSION 

We have considered Apple’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of the 

Board is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS 

Costs against Appellant. 

Case: 22-1890 Document: 36 Page: 11 Filed: 01/12/2024