Source: http://www.google.ca/patents/US9161713
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 13:30:00
Document Index: 355769843

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 302', '§ 1', '§ 311']

Patent US9161713 - Multi-mode patient monitor configured to self-configure for a selected or ... - Google Patents
A patient monitoring system comprises a plurality of emitters configured to transmit light into a tissue site and a detector configured to receive the light after tissue absorption. The detector generates a signal responsive to the intensity of the light and communicates the signal to a monitor. An information...http://www.google.ca/patents/US9161713?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US9161713 - Multi-mode patient monitor configured to self-configure for a selected or determined mode of operation
Publication number US9161713 B2
Application number US 13/721,497
Also published as US7438683, US8337403, US20050283052, US20090048495, US20130109935
Publication number 13721497, 721497, US 9161713 B2, US 9161713B2, US-B2-9161713, US9161713 B2, US9161713B2
Patent Citations (658), Non-Patent Citations (70), Referenced by (26), Classifications (12), Legal Events (3)
US 9161713 B2
US5750329 12 Jul 1996 12 May 1998 Centers For Disease Control And Prevention Methods and compositions for an artificial lung organ culture system
1 8,845,543, Sep. 2014, Diab et al.
2 Appendixes for Expert Report of Dr. Robert Stone Regarding the invalidity of Masimo's Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 7, 2012.
3 Declaration of Gail Baura, Ph.D. in Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, Doc. 551, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
4 Declaration of Gail Baura, Ph.D. in Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Doc. 508, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 21, 2012.
5 Declaration of Gail Baura, Ph.D. In Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, Doc. 561, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
6 Declaration of Gail Baura, Ph.D. in Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,272, Doc. 554, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
7 Declaration of Mohammed K. Diab in Support of Masimo's Oppositions to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,632,272 and 7,215,984, Doc. 563, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012 (Redacted).
8 Declaration of Perry D. Oldham in Support of Masimo Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, vol. 1, Doc. 556, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
9 Declaration of Perry D. Oldham in Support of Masimo Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, Doc. 553, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
10 Declaration of Perry D. Oldham in Support of Masimo Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Doc. 548, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
11 Declaration of Perry D. Oldham in Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, vol. 2, Doc. 558, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
12 Declaration of Perry D. Oldham in Support of Masimo's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, Doc. 550, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012 (Redacted).
13 Defendants' Answer and Philips Electronics North America Corp.'s Counterclaims to Masimo's First Amended Complaint, Doc. 11, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00742 (LPS/MPT) dated Nov. 7, 2011.
14 Defendants' Answer and Philips Electronics North America Corp.'s Counterclaims to Masimo's Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 43, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00742 (LPS/MPT) dated May 11, 2012.
15 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, Doc. 402, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 14, 2012.
16 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Doc. 406, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 14, 2012.
17 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,263,222, Doc. 410, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 14, 2012.
18 Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge Thynge's Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim.Construction, Doc. 218, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 7, 2011.
19 Expert Report of Dr. Robert Stone Regarding the invalidity of Masimo's Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 7, 2012.
20 Lie, C. et al., in "Comparison of the Nellcor 200 and N-300 pulse oximeters during simulated postoperative activities", Anesthesia, May 1997, 52(5):450-452 (Abstract), p. 1.
21 Maciej Niedzwiecki et al. "Smoothing of Discontinuous Signals: The Competitive Approach," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 43, No. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 1-13.
22 Malviya, S. et al in "False Alarms and Sensitifity of Conventional Pulse Oximetry Versus the Masimo SET(TM) Technology in the Pediatric Postanesthesia Care Unit", Anesth Analg 2000;90, p. 1336-1340.
23 Malviya, S. et al in "False Alarms and Sensitifity of Conventional Pulse Oximetry Versus the Masimo SET™ Technology in the Pediatric Postanesthesia Care Unit", Anesth Analg 2000;90, p. 1336-1340.
24 Masimo Corporation's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, Doc. 552, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
25 Masimo Corporation's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, Doc. 555, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012. (Redacted).
26 Masimo Corporation's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, Doc. 549, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Sep. 28, 2012 (Redacted).
27 Masimo Corporation's Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction, Doc. 219, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 8, 2011.
28 Masimo Corporation's Response to Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction, Doc. 232, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 24, 2011.
29 Masimo's Answer to Philips' Counterclaims to Masimo's Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 358, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00742 (LPS/MPT) dated Jun. 4, 2012.
30 Masimo's Answer to Philips' Counterclaims, Doc. 28, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00742 (LPS/MPT) dated Dec. 30, 2011.
31 Memorandum Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction, Doc. 319, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Jan. 17, 2011.
32 NPL-Pulse-Oximetry-study.pdf, pp. 1-28.
33 Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, Doc. 444, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 21, 2012. (Redacted).
34 Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Doc. Doc 445, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 21, 2012. (Redacted).
35 Philip Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, Doc. 394, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme BOblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 14, 2012.
36 Philip's Opening Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Nonnigringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, Doc. 442, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 21, 2012. (Redacted).
37 Philips' Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, Doc. 413, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Aug. 14, 2012.
38 Philips' Response to Masimo Corporation's Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction, Doc. 230, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 24, 2011.
39 Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, Doc. 614, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Oct. 26, 2012 (Redacted).
40 Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,216,984, Doc. 609, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Oct. 26, 2012. (Redacted).
41 Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, Doc. 613, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Oct. 26, 2012 (Redacted).
42 Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,699,194, Doc. 610, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Oct. 26, 2012. (Redacted).
43 Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction, Doc. 210, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Feb. 18, 2011.
44 Revised Expert Report of Dr. Robert Stone Regarding the invalidity of Masimo's Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Phillips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 7, 2012.
45 Rheineck, A.T. et al. in "Advanced Pulse Oximeter Signal Processing Technology Compared to Simple Averaging. I. Effect on Frequency of Alarms in the Operating Room", Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 11:192-195, 1999.
46 Rheineck, A.T. et al. In "Advanced Pulse Oximeter Signal Processing Technology Compared to Simple Averaging. II. Effect on Frequency of Alarms in the Postanesthesia Care Unit", Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 11, p. 196-200, 1999.
47 Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Doc. 42, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00742 (LPS/MPT) dated Apr. 25, 2012.
48 Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Robert Stone Regarding the invalidity of Masimo's Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,272, U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,699,194, Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Böblingen GMBH, (District of Delaware, Case No. 1:09-cv-00080 (LPS/MPT) dated Mar. 18, 2012.
49 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,403, filed Jul. 23, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,222, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
50 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,409, filed Aug. 17, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6.699,194, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
51 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,463, filed Sep. 5, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,215,984, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
52 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,532, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,499,835, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
53 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,534, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,962,188, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
54 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,538, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,377,899, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
55 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,541, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,899,507, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
56 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,542, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 8,180,420, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
57 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,543, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,850,787, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
58 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,548, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,880,606, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
59 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,551, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,970,792, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
60 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,553, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,024,233, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
61 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,555, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,440,787, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
62 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,557, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 8,150,487, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
63 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,559, filed Sep. 13, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 8,190,223, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
64 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,561, filed Sep. 14, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 8,019,400, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
65 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,562, filed Sep. 14, 2012 requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,463,311, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
66 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,566, filed Sep. 14, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,530,955, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
67 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,567, filed Sep. 14, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,684,090, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
68 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,568, filed Sep. 14, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 8,128,572, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
69 U.S. Appl. No. 90/012,699, filed Oct. 4, 2012, requesting ex parte reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,002,952, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 and 35 U.S.C. § 302.
70 U.S. Appl. No. 95/002,183, filed Sep. 12, 2012, requesting inter partes reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,530,955, including accompanying Reexam Request, claim charts, and other documentation filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.913 and 35 U.S.C. § 311.
International Classification A61B5/00, G06F19/00, G06F3/00, A61B5/1455
Cooperative Classification A61B2562/08, A61B2560/0487, G06F19/3412, A61B2505/01, A61B2560/02, G06F19/3406, A61B5/14551, G06F3/002