3 ms·

Patents in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US1

by theamk 3y ago

Patents in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en They look identical to me btw? both files on 2020-02 and have title of "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user". From summary: > light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm. In an embodiment, the detector comprises a plurality of photodetectors arranged in a special geometry comprising... there are 30 claims and some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art ("a storage device configured to at least temporarily store at least the measurement").. I wonder what's the real innovation is there?

arthurcolle 3y ago
One has a typo, one doesn't "The light source emits light at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." vs "The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
bdowling 3y ago
> some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art The standard is to consider ALL of the elements together in the specific configuration. If this were not the case, then any invention that incorporated any conventional element (e.g., a lever) would be invalid.
- theamk 3y ago
  It cannot be that simple, can it? Otherwise changing a single element (say "concave surface" to "sine-shaped surface", or "strap" to "clamp") would invalidate the patent.
  - gojomo 3y ago
    Expert patent language typically covers every foreseeable usable variant, and any subset of features likely to provide the core benefits, as 'claims'.
  - terminous 3y ago
    You must be new to the wonderful world of patent law.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    Yes. In a well-written claim, then each limitation is only there because it was necessary to get the examiner to allow the patent (i.e., to be valid in light of the known prior art).
  - rtpg 3y ago
    I think the point is that the patent mentions all the characteristics that are essential to the underlying tech working, and that changing those would likely make the mechanism not work. But also, judges and courts and all of this stuff exists because at the end of the day human beings look at the facts on the ground. There isn't some sort of magical turing machine that decides on exactitude here.
  - wisty 3y ago
    Patents are written by lawyers to cover this, generally speaking. Also a court case will have a judge to apply some "common sense" (to lawyers) rulings, like whether in this context a strap could also be a clamp. Then the lawyers will argue their sides to the judge, try to find precedents, and call in experts, and eventually it gets sorted out.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    There are two separate matters considered in these cases. First there is the question of whether the patent claims are valid: this is determined by evaluating prior art, either by itself or in “combination” where you take some elements from different pieces of prior art and argue that a skilled artisan would have known to combine them. Apple appears to have challenged the patents in an IPR proceeding at the Patent Office, using combinations of prior art from earlier patents, which they largely prevailed in. However an appeals court reversed parts of that ruling on technical grounds related to the way the IPR board combined different references (and some claims seem to have survived it.) You can read an appeals court decision here [1]. Separate is the question of infringement: Masimo needed to show that Apple’s products infringe the claims of the patent. Apple could “design around” these claims by changing essential elements of their product, but that would only protect them going forward. [1] https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-12-2023_2188913.pdf https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-...
farhanhubble 3y ago
These are both Masimo patents, right. Is there a link to Apple's patent too?
starky 3y ago
The statement of a storage device is part of a larger claim that decribes a different embodiment of the invention that they also want to protect. If it was an independent claim it would almost certainly be invalid, but as part of a specific claim or as a dependent claim it could be valid when considering the entire embodiment described by the claim(s).

by theamk 3y ago

arthurcolle 3y ago

One has a typo, one doesn't "The light source emits light at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." vs "The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bdowling 3y ago

> some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art The standard is to consider ALL of the elements together in the specific configuration. If this were not the case, then any invention that incorporated any conventional element (e.g., a lever) would be invalid.

theamk 3y ago
It cannot be that simple, can it? Otherwise changing a single element (say "concave surface" to "sine-shaped surface", or "strap" to "clamp") would invalidate the patent.
- gojomo 3y ago
  Expert patent language typically covers every foreseeable usable variant, and any subset of features likely to provide the core benefits, as 'claims'.
- terminous 3y ago
  You must be new to the wonderful world of patent law.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Yes. In a well-written claim, then each limitation is only there because it was necessary to get the examiner to allow the patent (i.e., to be valid in light of the known prior art).
- rtpg 3y ago
  I think the point is that the patent mentions all the characteristics that are essential to the underlying tech working, and that changing those would likely make the mechanism not work. But also, judges and courts and all of this stuff exists because at the end of the day human beings look at the facts on the ground. There isn't some sort of magical turing machine that decides on exactitude here.
- wisty 3y ago
  Patents are written by lawyers to cover this, generally speaking. Also a court case will have a judge to apply some "common sense" (to lawyers) rulings, like whether in this context a strap could also be a clamp. Then the lawyers will argue their sides to the judge, try to find precedents, and call in experts, and eventually it gets sorted out.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  There are two separate matters considered in these cases. First there is the question of whether the patent claims are valid: this is determined by evaluating prior art, either by itself or in “combination” where you take some elements from different pieces of prior art and argue that a skilled artisan would have known to combine them. Apple appears to have challenged the patents in an IPR proceeding at the Patent Office, using combinations of prior art from earlier patents, which they largely prevailed in. However an appeals court reversed parts of that ruling on technical grounds related to the way the IPR board combined different references (and some claims seem to have survived it.) You can read an appeals court decision here [1]. Separate is the question of infringement: Masimo needed to show that Apple’s products infringe the claims of the patent. Apple could “design around” these claims by changing essential elements of their product, but that would only protect them going forward. [1] https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-12-2023_2188913.pdf https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-...

farhanhubble 3y ago

These are both Masimo patents, right. Is there a link to Apple's patent too?

starky 3y ago

The statement of a storage device is part of a larger claim that decribes a different embodiment of the invention that they also want to protect. If it was an independent claim it would almost certainly be invalid, but as part of a specific claim or as a dependent claim it could be valid when considering the entire embodiment described by the claim(s).