4 ms·
Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmiss
by c0pium 3y ago
Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmission of light through a thin part of the body, such as a finger or ear, as opposed to reflectance. Reflection pulse oximetry from a thick part of the body, such as a wrist, is a much more recent invention and is the subject of these patents.
- withinboredom 3y agoThis. Is this it? "The scattered light through the tissue came back instead of through, so this is totally novel!" Like literally, we are arguing over the vector of the light?
- c0pium 3y agoTechnically yes, but that’s a bit like saying rocket engine patents are about the vector of hot gasses. There are a lot of issues with creating one chip that both emits and receives light which are not present in a transmission model. In particular, if you look at the actual claims in the case, this is what many of the areas which were infringed upon deal with.
- az226 3y agoI think that has to be decided by jury/judge.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- c0pium 3y agoWhat do you think this article was about, if not a judge and jury deciding this issue?
- withinboredom 3y agoA rocket engine (in its entirety) is probably not something you'd patent, probably because of precisely this issue. A sensor that can detect light is also likely not patentable, even if how it does so is novel. That seems ridiculous to me; there needs to be a point at which a patent, no matter how novel, shouldn't be possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd love to be on that jury.