Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01891/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01891-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

2022-1891

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

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

01524.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2024 

______________________ 

BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, Wilmer Cutler Pickering 

Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. 

Also represented by MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, LAUREN 

ANN DEGNAN, CHRISTOPHER DRYER, WALTER KARL RENNER

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

 JOSHUA STOWELL, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

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

STEPHEN C. JENSEN, JAROM D. KESLER, JOSEPH R. RE. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024
2 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from a decision of the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1−16 of Masimo’s 

U.S. Patent 10,433,776 (the “’776 patent”) were not unpatentable as obvious in view of the asserted prior art. Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., No. IPR2020-01524 (P.T.A.B. 

Apr. 29, 2022), J.A. 1−52 (“Decision”). For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Masimo’s ’776 patent is directed to a pulse oximeter 

that operates by reducing or increasing power consumption 

after comparing various processing characteristics, like 

pulse rate or signal-to-noise ratios, to predetermined 

thresholds. See ’776 patent, col. 2 ll. 25−33, col. 3 ll. 14−25. 

Alterations to power consumption levels are achieved using 

sampling mechanisms that process incoming signal samples to determine whether subsequent sampling processing 

should be reduced during high-signal-quality periods or increased during low-signal-quality periods or when critical 

physiological measurements are necessary. Id. at col. 2 ll. 

25−44. Sampling thus modifies the oximeter’s power consumption by modifying the number of input samples received and processed.

One exemplary sampling mechanism involves “an emitter duty cycle control” that “determines the duty cycle of 

the current supplied by the emitter drive outputs . . . to 

both red and IR sensor emitters.” ’776 patent, col. 5 l. 

64−col. 6 l. 2; see col. 2 ll. 34−44 (noting that the associated 

duty cycle “may be in the range of about 3.125% to about 

25%”). A duty cycle is, essentially, the fraction of time during which a signal is active. Thus, a 25% duty cycle means 

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 3

that the signal is on 25% of the time and off for the other 

75% of the time. 

The ’776 patent specification also notes that, “[i]n conjunction with an intermittently reduced duty cycle or as an 

independent sampling mechanism, there may be a ‘data off’ 

time period longer than one drive current cycle where the 

emitter drivers . . . are turned off.” Id. at col. 7 ll. 11−15.

Independent claim 1 of the ’776 patent recites:

1. A method of operating a patient monitor configured to monitor at least a pulse rate of a patient by 

processing signals responsive to light attenuated 

by body tissue, the method comprising:

operating the patient monitor according to a first 

control protocol, wherein said operating includes 

activating a first control protocol light source in accordance with the first control protocol, the first 

control protocol light source including one or more 

of a plurality of light sources;

when operating according to the first control protocol, calculating, by the patient monitor, measurement values of the pulse rate, the measurement 

values responsive to light from the first control protocol light source, detected by a detector of an optical sensor after attenuation by body tissue of the 

patient using the patient monitor;

generating a trigger signal, wherein generating 

said trigger signal is responsive to at least one of: a 

comparison of processing characteristics to a predetermined threshold, a physiological event, or signal quality characteristics of signals received from 

the detector;

in response to receiving the trigger signal, operating the patient monitor according to a second control protocol different from the first control 

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024
4 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

protocol, wherein said operating includes activating a second control protocol light source in accordance with the second control protocol, the second 

control protocol light source including one or more 

of the plurality of light sources; and

when operating the patient monitor according to 

the second control protocol, calculating the measurement values of the pulse rate, the measurement 

values responsive to light from the second control 

protocol light source, detected by the detector after 

attenuation by the body tissue of the patient using 

the patient monitor,

wherein said operating of the patient monitor according to the first control protocol operates the 

first control protocol light source according to a 

first duty cycle and said operating of the patient 

monitor according to the second control protocol operates the second control protocol light source according to a second duty cycle, wherein power 

consumption of the first control protocol light 

source according to the first duty cycle is different 

than power consumption of the second control protocol light source according to the second duty cycle. 

’776 patent, col. 11 l. 41−col. 12 l. 21 (emphases added). Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations for the purposes of this appeal. See id. at col. 12 l. 60−col. 14 l. 9.

In its final written decision, the Board held that neither the first nor the second duty cycle recited in the claims 

could be 0%. Decision at 11−21. In particular, the Board 

construed “duty cycle” to mean “the ratio of operating time 

(or on time) of a light source to the total time period during 

which the light source is intermittently operated, expressed as a percentage” in view of a similar disclosure in 

the specification. Id. at 16−17 (citing the ’776 patent, col. 

2 ll. 43−44). The Board then held that neither the first nor 

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2024
APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION 5

the second duty cycle can be 0%, given that both of the associated first and second control protocol light sources must 

generate light. Decision at 17−18. The Board subsequently 

held that, based on its construction of “duty cycle,” Apple 

had not established that any of the challenged claims 

would have been unpatentable as obvious, as Apple only 

asserted prior art that taught devices operating with a 0% 

duty cycle. Id. at 28−33, 41−50. 

Apple timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In 

re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re 

Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding 

is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind 

might accept the evidence as adequate to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

Apple contends that the Board erred in holding that the 

claims prohibit a 0% duty cycle. Although Apple does not 

challenge the Board’s construction of “duty cycle,” it asserts 

that the claims provide no restriction on specific ratios necessary for each duty cycle. Appellant’s Br. at 13−17. We 

disagree. 

As the Board held, a 0% duty cycle would mean that the 

associated light source in the device is turned off. However, 

the claims require a light source to remain on during both 

the first and second duty cycles because the claims also require calculating pulse rate in each cycle based upon light 

from a light source. See Decision at 17−18. If the light 

source were turned off, the device could not calculate the 

heart rate as required. Id. 

Apple further contends that intrinsic evidence supports 

a conclusion that a duty cycle may be 0%. For example, 

claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites that the first 

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2024
6 APPLE INC. v. MASIMO CORPORATION

control protocol, which is associated with the first duty cycle, comprises “operating the first control protocol light 

source in a data off state.” ’776 patent, col. 12 ll. 43−46; see 

also id. at col. 14 ll. 27−30 (reciting the same limitation in 

claim 15, which depends from independent claim 11). Apple further points to a disclosure in the specification discussing a “data off” state. See, e.g., id. at col. 8 l. 14−col. 9 

l. 18. According to Apple, that “data off” state constitutes 

a duty cycle of 0%. Appellant’s Br. at 20−24, 28−30. We 

disagree. 

As the Board held, the specification sets forth that the 

first and second duty cycles are independent of the “data 

off” state. Decision at 19−21. Claims 6 and 15 require that 

the first control protocol includes a period of “data off” time 

as well as a period associated with the first duty cycle during which a light must be on. Id. They do not require or 

imply that a duty cycle as recited in the independent claims 

of the ’776 patent may be 0%.

For the above reasons, we see no error in the Board’s 

determination that the claims prohibit a 0% duty cycle, Decision at 11–21, and thus conclude that it was supported by 

substantial evidence. Hence, it correctly concluded that 

the claims were not shown to have been obvious over the 

cited prior art.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Apple’s remaining arguments and 

do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the Board’s final written decision. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1891 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 01/12/2024