3 ms·

Here are the two patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c912%2c502 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c...

Here are the two patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c912%2c502 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c... https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=us10%2c945%2c648 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=us10%2c... these don't seem to be typical patent troll stuff. Here's Claim 1 of the '648 patent: 1. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure a physiological parameter of a user, the user-worn device comprising: a first set of light emitting diodes (LEDs), the first set of LEDs comprising at least an LED configured to emit light at a first wavelength and an LED configured to emit light at a second wavelength; a second set of LEDs spaced apart from the first set of LEDs, the second set of LEDs comprising at least an LED configured to emit light at the first wavelength and an LED configured to emit light at the second wavelength; four photodiodes arranged on an interior surface of the user-worn device and configured to receive light after attenuation by tissue of the user; a protrusion comprising: a convex surface extending over the interior surface, a plurality of openings in the convex surface extending through the protrusion and aligned with the four photodiodes, each opening defined by an opaque surface, and a plurality of windows, each of the windows extending across a different one of the openings; and one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the photodiodes and calculate a measurement of the physiological parameter of the user.

stefan_ 3y ago
How is it not patent troll stuff? It's a meaningless tweak on something that existed some 10 years before 2020 when this garbage was filed.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Tell me what was published 20 years ago, and I'll see if it was raised in prosecution. Edit: after more looking, it appears the date you have to beat is 2006-04-21. I think that's their priority date.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  If only you'd been able to tell Apple's IP lawyers and outside counsel that a year ago, they'd not have been found guilty!
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    As I said below: find us something published before 2006-04-21 It's entirely possible that "everyone" did know it before then. However, the patent system runs (mostly) on printed stuff that proves it.
ashildr 3y ago
So do it with Laser diodes.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  "workaround" doesn't help if you've already manufactured them the other way.
adrr 3y ago
Using two wavelengths to measure blood oxygen level was invented in the 1930s. Pulse oximeters have been widely used since the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  You undoubtedly know more about this than I do, but every element of the claim (loosely speaking, everything before a semicolon) has to be found in the prior art. And there has to be some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine them. It IS tedious, but your paragraphs would get absolutely no traction with the PTO. The applicant has to disclose all the prior art he's aware of. This is often abused, but for a well-known technology area, it wouldn't do to say "I don't know of any." Indeed, at the end of this patent there are a whole bunch of references to other "oximetry" patents. If the patent somewhere points out why what they're doing isn't found in the prior art, I missed it.

stefan_ 3y ago

How is it not patent troll stuff? It's a meaningless tweak on something that existed some 10 years before 2020 when this garbage was filed.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Tell me what was published 20 years ago, and I'll see if it was raised in prosecution. Edit: after more looking, it appears the date you have to beat is 2006-04-21. I think that's their priority date.
FireBeyond 3y ago
If only you'd been able to tell Apple's IP lawyers and outside counsel that a year ago, they'd not have been found guilty!
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  As I said below: find us something published before 2006-04-21 It's entirely possible that "everyone" did know it before then. However, the patent system runs (mostly) on printed stuff that proves it.

ashildr 3y ago

So do it with Laser diodes.

AlbertCory 3y ago
"workaround" doesn't help if you've already manufactured them the other way.

adrr 3y ago

Using two wavelengths to measure blood oxygen level was invented in the 1930s. Pulse oximeters have been widely used since the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry

AlbertCory 3y ago
You undoubtedly know more about this than I do, but every element of the claim (loosely speaking, everything before a semicolon) has to be found in the prior art. And there has to be some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine them. It IS tedious, but your paragraphs would get absolutely no traction with the PTO. The applicant has to disclose all the prior art he's aware of. This is often abused, but for a well-known technology area, it wouldn't do to say "I don't know of any." Indeed, at the end of this patent there are a whole bunch of references to other "oximetry" patents. If the patent somewhere points out why what they're doing isn't found in the prior art, I missed it.