1. “Whether the Board erred in determining that claims 7-9 and 17-19 of the ’499 patent and claims 3, 5, 6, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’731 patent, which recite the application of machine learning to PPG data, are invalid as obvious, where the Board only found it would have been obvious to use machine learning to confirm an arrhythmia, not detect it as required by the claims.”
2. “Whether the Board erred in determining that claims 1-30 of the ’731 patent and claims 1-23 of the ’941 patent, which recite ‘confirm[ing] the presence of the arrhythmia’ based on ECG data, are invalid as obvious, where the principal prior art reference (Shmueli) only teaches detecting irregular heart conditions using PPG data.”
3. “Whether the Board’s decisions should be vacated where Apple withheld evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness despite its ongoing obligation under Board rules to produce evidence inconsistent with its position that the AliveCor patents are obvious.”
1. “[S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the machine learning claims of the ’499 patent and ’731 patents were obvious over the prior art.”
2. “[S]ubstantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that Shmueli teaches the step of confirming arrythmias using ECG measurements after a potential arrythmia is detected using PPG.”
3. “We need not delve deepy into the contours of an IPR litigant’s discovery obligations because AliveCor forfeited its argument by failing to raise it with the Board.”
