Court Opinion

ID: 9892555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 15:01:39.838022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:04.748896
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1393    Document: 42    Page: 1     Filed: 10/24/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                MASIMO CORPORATION,
                      Appellant

                            v.

                SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.,
                         Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-1393
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 00967.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: October 24, 2023
                  ______________________

     JEREMIAH HELM, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP,
 Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
 by JAROM D. KESLER, STEPHEN W. LARSON, Irvine, CA.

    RUDOLPH A. TELSCHER, JR., Husch Blackwell LLP, St.
 Louis, MO, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 JENNIFER E. HOEKEL, DAISY MANNING.
                ______________________
Case: 22-1393    Document: 42     Page: 2    Filed: 10/24/2023

 2              MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.

     Before PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PROST, Circuit Judge.
     Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) appeals from an inter
 partes review final written decision determining all claims
 of U.S. Patent No. RE47,244 (“the ’244 patent”) are un-
 patentable. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., No.
 IPR2020-00967, 2021 WL 6338280 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2021)
 (“Board Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
      The ’244 patent, titled “Alarm Suspend System,” is as-
 signed to Masimo. It relates to an alarm suspension sys-
 tem for medical alarms where the duration of an alarm
 delay or suspension is responsive to the specific physiolog-
 ical parameter measured. ’244 patent col. 2 l. 18–col. 4. l.
 8. The ’244 patent delays or suspends these alarms “so as
 to prevent unnecessary disturbance to the patient and dis-
 traction of the caregiver.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 34–36.
     Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 13 is il-
 lustrative and states:
        A method of electronically delaying or suspend-
        ing an alarm while an electronically calculated
        measurement of a physiological parameter sat-
        isfies an alarm activation threshold, the meas-
        urement of the physiological parameter
        responsive to a signal from a noninvasive sen-
        sor positioned at a monitored patient, the
        method comprising:
        electronically processing a signal from a nonin-
        vasive sensor;
        responsive to processing the signal, electroni-
        cally determining a first measurement of a first
        physiological parameter and a second measure-
        ment of a second physiological parameter using
        a patient monitoring device, the patient
Case: 22-1393    Document: 42     Page: 3    Filed: 10/24/2023

 MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.                3

        monitoring device including a processor and a
        memory device;
        electronically storing, using the patient moni-
        toring device, a first parameter-specific alarm
        delay or suspension period of time correspond-
        ing to the first physiological parameter and a
        second parameter-specific alarm delay or sus-
        pension period of time corresponding to the sec-
        ond physiological parameter, the first
        parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension
        period of time being different from the second
        parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension
        period of time;
        electronically determining, using the patient
        monitoring device, that the first measurement
        of the first physiological parameter satisfies a
        first alarm activation threshold;
        electronically initiating, using the patient mon-
        itoring device, the first parameter-specific
        alarm delay or suspension period of time; and
        electronically activating, using the patient
        monitoring device, a first alarm for the first
        physiological parameter in response to expira-
        tion of a first amount of delay or suspension as-
        sociated with the first parameter-specific alarm
        delay or suspension period of time.
 ’244 patent claim 13 (emphasis added).
     Sotera Wireless, Inc. (“Sotera”) petitioned for inter
 partes review of all claims of the ’244 patent. Sotera ar-
 gued obviousness on four grounds using U.S. Patent No.
 5,865,736 (“Baker”) as a reference and on two grounds us-
 ing U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0038332 (“Saidara”)
 as a reference. The Board determined all claims are un-
 patentable on the Saidara grounds. Masimo timely
Case: 22-1393    Document: 42      Page: 4    Filed: 10/24/2023

 4              MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.

 appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
     Masimo argues that the Board erred by incorrectly con-
 struing several claims and by improperly concluding that
 the prior art rendered the claims of the ’244 patent obvious.
 Specifically, Masimo argues: (1) that claims 1 and 13 re-
 quire the noninvasive measurement of two physiological
 parameters; (2) that the Board erred by not giving claim 18
 a means-plus-function construction; and (3) that the Board
 erred by construing the “parameter-specific alarm delay or
 suspension period of time” limitation to encompass only
 pre-alarm delays. Masimo also independently argues that
 the Board’s obviousness determinations cannot stand be-
 cause several of its factual findings are unsupported by
 substantial evidence. We address each argument in turn.
                               I
     We review the Board’s ultimate claim construction and
 any determinations based on intrinsic evidence de novo
 and review subsidiary factual findings involving extrinsic
 evidence for substantial evidence. Personalized Media
 Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.
 Cir. 2020). We address Masimo’s claim construction argu-
 ments in the order discussed above.
                              A
     Regarding the first claim-construction dispute,
 Masimo argues that the Board erred by determining all
 claims were obvious over Sotera’s proposed combination
 consisting of one physiological parameter measured from a
 noninvasive sensor and another physiological parameter
 measured from an invasive sensor. Claim 13 recites “elec-
 tronically processing a signal from a noninvasive sensor”
 and “responsive to processing the signal, electronically de-
 termining a first measurement of a first physiological pa-
 rameter and a second measurement of a second
Case: 22-1393     Document: 42     Page: 5    Filed: 10/24/2023

 MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.                 5

 physiological parameter.” ’244 patent claim 13. Claim 1
 similarly recites a “noninvasive physiological sensor” con-
 figured to output a signal, where “responsive to processing
 the signal,” the system “determine[s] a measurement of a
 physiological parameter based at least in part upon the sig-
 nal.” Id. at claim 1. Claim 1 also recites “at least one other
 physiological parameter for which the one or more proces-
 sors are configured to determine at least one measure-
 ment.” Id. Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, further
 recites “determin[ing] a measurement of a second physio-
 logical parameter based at least in part upon the signal.”
 Id. at claim 8.
      Relying on this language, Masimo argues that claims 1
 and 13 require the noninvasive measurement of two differ-
 ent physiological parameters. Appellant’s Br. 23–28. So-
 tera responds that Masimo did not present this issue as a
 claim-construction dispute before the Board. We agree
 with Sotera. None of Masimo’s arguments before the Board
 presented or implicated a construction for claims 1 or 13
 requiring the noninvasive measurement of two physiologi-
 cal parameters. We therefore conclude that Masimo for-
 feited this argument.
     In its petition, Sotera stated that “Saidara discloses a
 noninvasive sensor.” J.A. 236 (claim 1); see also J.A. 248
 (claim 13). In its preliminary response, Masimo presented
 proposed constructions for several terms, but it did not as-
 sert how many parameters must be measured noninva-
 sively in claims 1 and 13. J.A. 303–07. And in its post-
 institution patent owner response, Masimo merely stated
 that “Saidara focuses on invasive sensors,” J.A. 549, and
 that Sotera’s expert “admitted Saidara does not teach a
 [skilled artisan] how to monitor blood glucose noninva-
 sively,” J.A. 562 n.7. Thus, the parties’ initial dispute con-
 cerned the nature of Saidara’s disclosure—not how many
 parameters must be measured noninvasively.
Case: 22-1393     Document: 42     Page: 6    Filed: 10/24/2023

 6              MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.

     In the petitioner’s reply, Sotera stated that “Masimo
 does not dispute Saidara discloses noninvasive sensors.”
 J.A. 618 n.7. In the patent owner sur-reply, Masimo noted
 that “[c]laims 1 and 13 require noninvasive sensors,” e.g.,
 J.A. 678, and argued that Saidara discloses only invasive
 sensors and monitors, J.A. 676, 678–79. Masimo’s argu-
 ments thus again concerned the contents of the prior art
 (namely, whether Saidara disclosed noninvasive sen-
 sors)—not how many parameters must be measured non-
 invasively.
     The Board “recognize[d] [Masimo’s] argument that
 claim 1 recites a noninvasive sensor,” Board Decision, 2021
 WL 6338280, at *25, but concluded that Sotera demon-
 strated a skilled artisan would have used a noninvasive
 sensor, as described in Sotera’s proposed combination, id.
     Masimo’s argument on appeal—that two parameters
 must be measured noninvasively—does not reflect the ar-
 guments Masimo made before the Board. Masimo limited
 its arguments before the Board to the disclosures of So-
 tera’s prior-art combination. Under these circumstances,
 we conclude that Masimo did not make this claim-construc-
 tion argument before the Board. Masimo has thus forfeited
 this argument. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980
 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even under the most gen-
 erous of readings, Google’s arguments below did not sug-
 gest any definition of ‘network penalty,’ let alone the highly
 particularized definition it presents on appeal.”).
                               B
     Masimo’s second claim construction argument presents
 an issue about whether Sotera complied with 37 C.F.R.
 § 42.104(b). We review decisions related to compliance
 with the Board’s procedural requirements for abuse of dis-
 cretion. Ericsson Inc. v. Intell. Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d
 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 22-1393     Document: 42     Page: 7    Filed: 10/24/2023

 MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.                 7

     Masimo argues that Sotera’s failure to present a
 means-plus-function construction for the limitation “a
 physiological measurement system comprising: a physio-
 logical sensor means . . . .” requires reversing the Board’s
 unpatentability determination for claim 18. We disagree.
     Masimo argues that the presence of “means” in claim
 18 necessitates a means-plus-function construction. Ac-
 cording to Masimo, Sotera’s failure to present a means-
 plus-function construction for claim 18 signifies that So-
 tera’s petition did not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3),
 thus prohibiting the Board from determining claim 18 is
 unpatentable.
     Claim 18 does not warrant a means-plus-function con-
 struction. Under our precedent, the use of “means” in a
 claim does not require a means-plus-function construction
 where the claim itself provides a sufficiently definite struc-
 ture. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Claim 18 recites “a
 physiological sensor means,” while claim 1 recites “a non-
 invasive physiological sensor.” ’244 patent claims 1, 18.
 Masimo, understandably, does not argue that claim 1 lacks
 a sufficiently definite structure or that the use of “physio-
 logical sensor” renders claim 1 indefinite. See Oral Arg. at
 12:22–35,       No.      22-1393,     https://oralarguments.
 cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1393_08092023.mp3
 (agreeing that “physiological sensor” should not be under-
 stood as a means-plus-function limitation and that “physi-
 ological sensor” does not render claim 1 indefinite). The
 use of “physiological sensor” in claim 1, combined with
 Masimo’s failure to dispute that claim 1 recites adequate
 structure, suggests that a skilled artisan would under-
 stand the structure of a physiological sensor from the
 words “physiological sensor” alone. We have determined
 means-plus-function construction is not appropriate in
 similar situations where the limitation preceding “means”
 provides a sufficiently definite structure to a skilled arti-
 san. Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am.
Case: 22-1393     Document: 42     Page: 8    Filed: 10/24/2023

 8              MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.

 Corp., 790 F.3d 1329, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding
 that a “voltage source means” provides sufficient structure
 where a skilled artisan would understand that the voltage
 source is a class of structures providing direct current volt-
 age); TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336,
 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that a “system
 memory means” provides sufficient structure for the func-
 tion of storing data).
      We now address the Board’s determination that Sotera
 complied with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) in light of our con-
 clusion that claim 18 does not warrant a means-plus-func-
 tion construction. Section 42.104(b)(3) states: “Where the
 claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or
 step-plus-function limitation as permitted by 35 U.S.C.
 § 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the spe-
 cific portions of the specification that describe the struc-
 ture, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed
 function.” This regulation applies only where the limita-
 tion at issue necessitates a mean-plus-function construc-
 tion. Since we have concluded that claim 18 does not, the
 Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that So-
 tera complied with this regulation.
                               C
      Masimo next argues that the Board’s construction of
 the “parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension period
 of time” limitation in claims 1, 13, and 18 was “gratuitous”
 and incorrect. See Appellant’s Br. 50, 59.
     Masimo’s argument that the Board gratuitously con-
 strued “parameter-specific alarm delay or suspension pe-
 riod of time” is meritless. Sotera petitioned for inter partes
 review on six grounds—four grounds using Baker as a ref-
 erence and two grounds using Saidara as a reference. So-
 tera explained in its petition that it was presenting
 alternative grounds for alternative constructions of “pa-
 rameter-specific alarm delay or suspension period of time.”
 The Baker grounds address obviousness under a
Case: 22-1393       Document: 42       Page: 9      Filed: 10/24/2023

 MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.                        9

 construction where the alarm delay term covers pre-alarm
 delays, while the Saidara grounds address obviousness un-
 der a construction where the alarm delay term covers only
 post-alarm delays. J.A. 187 (“Grounds 1–4 [Baker] of this
 Petition are directed to a construction encompassing delays
 before an alarm is activated (i.e., pre-alarm delays), and
 Grounds 5–6 [Saidara] are directed to temporary suspen-
 sion of active alarms (i.e., post-alarm suspensions).”). The
 Board did not err by construing the “parameter-specific
 alarm delay or suspension period of time” limitation that
 governed which grounds it would analyze in evaluating ob-
 viousness.
     The Board also correctly construed “parameter-specific
 alarm delay or suspension period of time” to cover only
 post-alarm delays or suspensions. We interpret patent
 claims by looking to the claim language, the specification,
 the prosecution history, and, where relevant, extrinsic evi-
 dence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed.
 Cir. 2005) (en banc). This interpretation is done “in the
 context of the entire patent, including the specification.”
 Id. at 1313.
      Here, the claim language itself is not particularly in-
 formative. Claims 1, 13, and 18 contain no language eluci-
 dating whether the “parameter-specific alarm delay or
 suspension period of time” limitation covers pre-alarm de-
 lays or only post-alarm delays, nor do the dependent
 claims. The specification, however, provides significant in-
 formation regarding the scope of this limitation. The spec-
 ification is uniform in its description of the alarm delay and
 suspensions as post-alarm delays and suspensions. It re-
 fers throughout to the silencing or suspending of audible or
 active alarms and the reactivation of alarms. E.g., ’244 pa-
 tent Abstract, Fig. 4, col. 2 ll. 33–38, col. 2 ll. 55–57, col. 2
 ll. 61–63, col. 3 ll. 1–6, col. 3 ll. 31–32, col. 3 ll. 34–36, col. 3
 ll. 43–47, col. 3 ll. 58–60, col. 3 l. 65–col. 4 l. 1, col. 4 ll. 46–
 48, col. 4 ll. 58–60, col. 5 l. 42, col. 5 ll. 52–65, col. 6 ll. 1–
 12. This uniformity of description leads us to conclude that
Case: 22-1393    Document: 42      Page: 10   Filed: 10/24/2023

 10             MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.

 the ’244 patent uses “parameter-specific alarm delay or
 suspension period of time” to mean a post-alarm delay or
 suspension. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
 811 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing “probabil-
 istic model of normal computer system usage” in line with
 the specification’s consistent disclosures).
     We thus affirm the Board’s construction of “parameter-
 specific alarm delay or suspension period of time.”
                              II
     We turn now to Masimo’s obviousness arguments. We
 review the Board’s legal conclusion of obviousness de novo
 and review its subsidiary fact findings, including the scope
 and content of the prior art and the presence or absence of
 a motivation to combine, for substantial evidence. Intelli-
 gent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d
 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d
 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
     Masimo first argues that the Board lacked substantial
 evidence to conclude that a skilled artisan would modify
 Saidara by adding a noninvasive pulse oximeter that
 measures blood oxygen levels to Saidara’s sensor set, both
 as to the existence of a motivation to combine and the dis-
 closure of a noninvasive sensor. We disagree. Substantial
 evidence supports the Board’s findings that a skilled arti-
 san would modify Saidara to noninvasively measure blood
 oxygen levels by adding a noninvasive pulse oximeter to
 Saidara’s sensor set. See J.A. 1644 ¶ [0076] (Saidara dis-
 closing the monitoring of multiple physiological parame-
 ters); J.A. 1496 ¶ 168 (Sotera’s expert explaining why a
 skilled artisan would make the proposed combination); J.A.
 3936 at 23:2–11 (Masimo’s expert agreeing a skilled arti-
 san would use a noninvasive pulse oximeter to measure
 blood oxygen levels).
    Masimo also argues that the prior art does not disclose
 multiple alarm delay or suspension periods of time for
Case: 22-1393    Document: 42    Page: 11    Filed: 10/24/2023

 MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.              11

 different parameters, as required by the independent
 claims. We disagree and conclude that substantial evi-
 dence supports the Board’s findings that the prior art dis-
 closes multiple alarm delay or suspension periods of time
 for different parameters. J.A. 1644 ¶ [0073] (Saidara dis-
 closing the use of multiple sensors and multiple measure-
 ments); J.A. 1651 ¶ [0133] (Saidara disclosing a multiple
 alarm function for blood sugar levels); J.A. 1498–99, 1501–
 02 ¶¶ 174, 178 (Sotera’s expert explaining why a skilled ar-
 tisan would modify Saidara to use multiple alarm timings);
 J.A. 4237 at 324:3–17 (Masimo’s expert admitting that Sa-
 idara discloses multiple sensors measuring multiple phys-
 iological characteristics).
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Masimo’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm.
                        AFFIRMED