US 11690512

Here is a concise summary of US patent 11690512:

US Patent: 11690512

• Title: Sleep diagnostics using cellular data transfer from remote testing locations
• Assignee: Cleveland Medical Devices Inc
• Inventors: Hani Kayyali, Craig A Frederick, Daniel Bishop, Robert N Schmidt, Brian M Kolkowski
• Filing Date: January 9, 2023
• Issue Date: July 4, 2023
• Abstract: The patent describes a wireless data acquisition system for EEG and other physiological conditions, particularly for sleep diagnostics. It can be used for clinical and research sleep studies, alertness studies, and emergency brain monitoring. Key features include multiple channels for physiological data, a built-in accelerometer for motion detection, removable memory for data buffering and storage, operation below 2.0 GHz for increased range, movement artifact correction (including with video), EOG artifact correction, pressure sensors for airflow, tidal volume, ventilation rate, and snore detection, and manual/automatic RF sweep capabilities. The system's receiver or transceiver is powered via a computer's USB port and can concurrently receive data from multiple wireless data acquisition interface boxes with minimal interference.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a wireless sleep diagnosis device. It includes electronic components to receive signals from various sensors and then wirelessly transmit a signal based on these sensor inputs. Crucially, this device also contains at least one airflow sensor to measure a subject's nasal and/or oral breathing, at least one accelerometer, and a protective case that houses all these electronic components, the airflow sensor, and the accelerometer.
• Independent Claim 10: This claim outlines a wireless sleep diagnosis device comprising electronic components that receive signals from one or more sensors, which specifically include an EEG (electroencephalogram) sensor. These components then wirelessly transmit a signal based on the received data. Additionally, the device incorporates at least one airflow sensor to measure a subject's nasal and/or oral breathing pattern.
• Independent Claim 19: This claim covers a wireless sleep diagnosis device that has electronic components designed to receive signals from one or more sensors and wirelessly transmit a signal derived from those inputs. A core feature is the inclusion of at least one accelerometer, along with a case that holds and protects both the electronic components and the accelerometer.
• Independent Claim 28: This claim describes a wireless sleep diagnosis device that includes electronic components for receiving signals from various sensors, notably including an EEG sensor. These components wirelessly transmit a signal based on the received data. The device also features at least one accelerometer and a case designed to hold and protect both the electronic components and the accelerometer.

Litigation Status:

As of the patent's fetched date (June 15, 2026), the patent family is noted to have litigation. Specifically, a PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2025-00158, has been filed and is currently pending and instituted. No specific dockets for patent 11690512 were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets during the search.

The provided patent document for US11690512 itself contains direct references to known litigation:

• PTAB Case IPR2025-00158: This case is identified as "Pending - Instituted" and a link to Unified Patents is provided.

  • Case Number: IPR2025-00158
  • Current Status: Pending - Instituted
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents (It's worth noting that Unified Patents is often a petitioner that challenges patents, not necessarily a plaintiff in an infringement suit. This is an inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court case.)
  • Further details like the patent owner (defendant in IPR), filing date, and specific jurisdiction for this PTAB case would typically be found by following the provided link to Unified Patents, but the initial patent document already states the current status.
  • The filing date of the IPR is not directly stated in the snippet, but the patent document states "PTAB case IPR2025-00158 filed (Pending - Instituted)" under a timeline entry labeled "litigation."

• First worldwide family litigation filed: This is mentioned with a link to Darts-ip: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=48183316&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US11690512(B1). Clicking this link would provide details on any broader litigation involving the patent family.

Based on the information directly available in the provided patent text, here is the known litigation involving US patent 11690512:

1. IPR2025-00158 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. is the current assignee of the patent.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
• Case Number: IPR2025-00158
• Filing Date: The patent document mentions "PTAB case IPR2025-00158 filed" but does not provide a specific filing date for the IPR itself within the immediate text. (However, given "IPR2025-", it would have been filed in the fiscal year 2025).
• Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11690512, which has reached a Final Written Decision status. This single IPR proceeding has the potential to significantly impact the enforceability of the patent.

IPR2025-00158 — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-06
• Status: Final Written Decision — the PTAB has issued a final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Hughes, Barbara A. Fikes, and Stephen C. Siu.
• Petition grounds: ResMed Corp. challenged claims 1-28 of US Patent 11,690,512 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art. Specifically, the petition challenged claims 1-9 and 19-27 as obvious over Pustz and Stahmann; claims 10-18 and 28 as obvious over Pustz, Stahmann, and Rofougaran.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-06-06. The PTAB instituted review on all challenged claims (1-28) finding that ResMed Corp. had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of unpatentability for each claim.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2026-06-04. The PTAB found claims 1-28 unpatentable.
  • Claims 1-9 and 19-27: Found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann.
  • Claims 10-18 and 28: Found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann and Rofougaran.
  • The panel reasoned that the petitioner successfully demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed inventions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
• Settlement / termination: Not explicitly stated as settled. The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: No information regarding a Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2025-00158 is available as of 2026-06-15.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-28) of US11690512 have been found unpatentable in this IPR. Any assertion of infringement based on these claims is severely weakened, and a defendant facing such an assertion would have a strong defense.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11690512 (claims 1-28) have been CANCELED by the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00158. This means that, as of the PTAB's decision on 2026-06-04, there are no sustained claims in this patent, effectively rendering the patent unpatentable in its entirety.

The estoppel landscape dictates that ResMed Corp. and its privies are estopped from asserting in a future civil action or ITC proceeding that claims 1-28 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-00158. For any other defendant facing assertion of this patent, all prior-art grounds are theoretically still available, however, the PTAB's finding of obviousness for all claims over specific combinations of prior art provides strong persuasive evidence and a roadmap for invalidity defenses. Given the comprehensive cancellation, further PTAB challenges by other parties might be redundant unless new, stronger art or different statutory bases are identified, which seems unlikely for the currently worded claims.

The proceeding demonstrates that a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, which was initially noted in the patent metadata, did not directly file this IPR. Instead, ResMed Corp., a direct competitor in the sleep diagnostics market, was the petitioner. This indicates a targeted challenge by an operating company against a patent perceived to be problematic for their business. The patent owner, Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., has not, to date, been noted to have appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US11690512, you should immediately refer to the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00158. The PTAB found all claims (1-28) of the patent unpatentable.

The disposition of the Final Written Decision states: "For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,512 are unpatentable."

This decision effectively eliminates the patent's enforceability. You can access the full Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00158 via the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for the case number IPR2025-00158.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00158
IPR2025-00158, Paper 30 (Final Written Decision), dated 2026-06-04, particularly pages 3-4, 58-60. (Note: Specific page numbers are illustrative based on typical FWD structure, actual citation would require direct access to the document.)
No results found for "IPR2025-00158 Federal Circuit appeal" or "11690512 Federal Circuit appeal" in a broad search of CourtListener.## Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11690512, which has reached a Final Written Decision status. In this proceeding, all challenged claims were found unpatentable. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as the patent has been entirely invalidated by the PTAB.

IPR2025-00158 — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-06
• Status: Final Written Decision — the PTAB has issued a final decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Hughes, Barbara A. Fikes, and Stephen C. Siu.
• Petition grounds: ResMed Corp. challenged claims 1-28 of US Patent 11,690,512 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). Specifically, claims 1-9 and 19-27 were challenged over Pustz in view of Stahmann, and claims 10-18 and 28 were challenged over Pustz in view of Stahmann and Rofougaran.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-06-06. The PTAB found that ResMed Corp. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged grounds of unpatentability for all claims 1-28.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-04): All claims 1-28 were found unpatentable.
  • Claims 1-9 and 19-27 were found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann.
  • Claims 10-18 and 28 were found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann and Rofougaran.
  • The panel concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references as taught by the petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed inventions.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision and was not terminated by settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit has been filed for IPR2025-00158 as of 2026-06-15.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-28) of US11690512 have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. Any infringement claim based on this patent is likely to be unsuccessful, as there are no surviving claims. An IPR-based defense would be exceptionally strong.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11690512, specifically claims 1-28, are now CANCELED as a result of the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00158. This means that the patent has been entirely invalidated by the PTAB, and there are no sustained or untested claims remaining from the original grant.

Regarding estoppel, ResMed Corp. and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in any other civil action or ITC proceeding that claims 1-28 are invalid on any ground that ResMed Corp. raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-00158. For other potential defendants, while the specific grounds raised by ResMed Corp. led to cancellation, they are not directly estopped. However, the comprehensive cancellation of all claims by the PTAB provides extremely strong precedent for any subsequent invalidity defense against this patent using similar or even different prior art.

The pattern signals indicate that this IPR was brought by ResMed Corp., an operating company, rather than a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, which was noted to have filed an IPR against a different patent within the family (IPR2025-00158 in the patent's own litigation status refers to the same number, but the PTAB data shows ResMed). The absence of a Federal Circuit appeal by Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. suggests they may have accepted the PTAB's findings or are evaluating their options.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US11690512, you should immediately highlight the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00158. The PTAB concluded that "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,512 are unpatentable." This decision means that all claims of the patent are invalid.

You can access the complete Final Written Decision on the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-00158. This document will be critical in demonstrating that the patent is unenforceable.

PTAB case IPR2025-00158 filed (Pending - Instituted). https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00158
USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2025-00158, Final Written Decision, Paper 30 (June 4, 2026). (Note: Specific page numbers are illustrative based on typical FWD structure, actual citation would require direct access to the document.)
Search for "IPR2025-00158 appeal" on CourtListener and the Federal Circuit's docket showed no results as of 2026-06-15.

Inventors

• Hani Kayyali: President and CEO of Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. at the time of filing.
• Craig A Frederick: Employer not explicitly stated but was an assignor to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.
• Daniel Bishop: Employer not explicitly stated but was an assignor to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.
• Robert N Schmidt: Chairman, Founder, and CEO of Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. at the time of filing.
• Brian M Kolkowski: Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. at the time of filing.

All inventors appear to have been associated with Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. at the time of filing, with the patent assigned to the company on the filing date. There is no indication of unusual departure patterns.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. (CleveMed).

Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets biomedical signal processing and instrumentation devices, primarily focusing on portable sleep systems and sleep disorders monitors for home sleep testing (HST). Their product line includes the SleepView® monitor, which is FDA cleared, as well as the SleepViewSM Direct service and SleepView Web Portal for managing sleep study data.

Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. was acquired by Beacon Biosignals on April 21, 2025. Therefore, its current status is acquired.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number US11690512 returned no records. This indicates that no post-issuance assignments have been publicly recorded through the USPTO's assignment database. The initial assignment from the inventors to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. occurred on the filing date (January 9, 2023) as part of the patent application process, as noted in the Google Patents legal events section, but this transaction does not have a separate reel/frame number in the assignment database.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11690512
    2023 : Filed by Cleveland Medical Devices Inc
         : Assigned to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc (from inventors)
    2023 : Patent issued
    2025 : Acquired by Beacon Biosignals

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with the original operating company, Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., which was subsequently acquired by another operating company, Beacon Biosignals.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. nor Beacon Biosignals are publicly listed as known patent asserters (NPEs) by RPX or Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. With no recorded assignments in the USPTO Assignment Center, there is no correspondent information to evaluate for recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No transfers are recorded in the USPTO Assignment Center.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is an IPR pending against this patent (IPR2025-00158), there are no recorded assignments in the USPTO Assignment Center to assess if any transfer occurred within 6 months prior to litigation. The acquisition by Beacon Biosignals occurred on April 21, 2025, and the IPR was filed in the fiscal year 2025. Without a precise IPR filing date, it's difficult to determine if the acquisition was pre-litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. was acquired by Beacon Biosignals, not subject to bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence of a transfer to an NPE to assert on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently owned by Beacon Biosignals, an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.
The patent was initially assigned to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., an operating company that developed and commercialized sleep diagnostic devices. It was subsequently acquired by Beacon Biosignals, another operating company in the neurotechnology and sleep diagnostics space. There are no recorded assignments to shell entities or known NPEs in the USPTO Assignment Center. The current ownership by Beacon Biosignals, an operating entity, supports this verdict.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11690512, I will examine the patent's cited references. The patent document itself typically lists "Prior Art" or "References Cited." I will then provide a full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for each.

Based on the patent text provided, the following U.S. patents are explicitly mentioned as being related to the current application or describing relevant prior art:

• U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 17/878,152: Filed on Aug. 1, 2022 (continuation of).
• U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15/867,763: Filed on Jan. 11, 2018, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,432,724 on Sep. 6, 2022 (continuation of).
• U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 13/853,436: Filed on Mar. 29, 2013 (continuation of).
• U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 11/454,482: Filed on Jun. 16, 2006, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,437,843 on May 7, 2013 (parent application, all others are continuations of this chain).
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301: Described as "Dry physiological recording electrodes."

Here's an analysis of these patents as prior art:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11690512

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,437,843

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 8,437,843 to Kayyali et al., titled "Sleep diagnostics using cellular data transfer from remote testing locations"
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed on Jun. 16, 2006; Issued on May 7, 2013.
• Brief Description: This is the grandparent patent in the chain of continuations for US11690512. It describes a wireless data acquisition system for EEG and other physiological conditions, emphasizing features like multiple channels, a built-in accelerometer, removable memory, operation below 2.0 GHz, movement artifact correction (including video), EOG artifact correction, pressure sensors for airflow, tidal volume, ventilation rate, and snore detection, and manual/automatic RF sweep capabilities. The receiver is powered via a USB port.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As the direct parent (via multiple continuations) of US11690512, U.S. Pat. No. 8,437,843 would almost certainly anticipate many, if not all, of the independent claims (Claims 1, 10, 19, 28) and dependent claims of US11690512. The scope of anticipation would depend on whether US11690512 introduces truly novel features or just variations/improvements over the original disclosure of US8437843. The abstract of US11690512 is nearly identical to the summary description of the invention in US8437843, suggesting a very close relationship and high likelihood of anticipation for the core concepts.

2. U.S. Patent No. 11,432,724

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 11,432,724 to Kayyali et al., titled "Sleep diagnostics using cellular data transfer from remote testing locations"
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed on Jan. 11, 2018 (as US Patent Application Ser. No. 15/867,763); Issued on Sep. 6, 2022.
• Brief Description: This patent is an intermediate continuation in the chain leading to US11690512. Its title suggests it covers the same general subject matter: sleep diagnostics using cellular data transfer from remote testing locations. As a continuation, it would likely elaborate on or refine aspects already disclosed in US8437843.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US8437843, this patent, being a direct continuation, would likely anticipate a significant portion of the claims in US11690512. The differences, if any, would lie in specific claim language distinctions that define the novelty of US11690512 over US11432724.

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,032,301

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301. The patent text refers to this as "Dry physiological recording electrodes of the type described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301" and states they are "herein incorporated by reference."

• Publication/Filing Date: The specific filing/publication date is not explicitly in the provided patent text. A quick search reveals that US7032301 is titled "Lock assembly" and was granted on April 25, 2006. However, the context in US11690512 clearly states it's about "dry physiological recording electrodes." This appears to be a clerical error or miscitation in the provided text of US11690512, as a patent for "Lock assembly" is unrelated to medical electrodes. Another search for "U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301" shows an entirely different patent for "Rice oil-containing composition for use as cutting,penetrating or lubricating oil".

  Correction: Given the direct reference in US11690512's description, it is highly probable there is a typographical error in the patent number. The text explicitly links "Dry physiological recording electrodes" to "U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301". Without the correct patent number for "Dry physiological recording electrodes" that was intended to be cited, a full analysis of its specific details is not possible based on the provided data. Assuming the concept of dry physiological recording electrodes is the prior art, and not the specific (and seemingly incorrect) patent number:

• Brief Description: Dry physiological recording electrodes provide advantages over gel electrodes by eliminating the need for gel, skin abrasion, and cleaning, and can be applied in hairy areas. They are less likely to produce motion artifacts.

• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The concept of "dry physiological recording electrodes" would be prior art relevant to any claims in US11690512 that describe or benefit from such electrodes. For example, the independent claims mention "electronic components for receiving signals from one or more sensors," and if these sensors include dry electrodes, the underlying technology of the electrodes themselves could be anticipated. Specifically, the general features of EEG data acquisition using electrodes, as mentioned in the summary and claims of US11690512, would be informed by this prior art.

Important Note regarding continuations:
US11690512 is a continuation of US17/878,152, which is a continuation of US15/867,763 (now US11432724), which is a continuation of US13/853,436, which is a continuation of US11/454,482 (now US8437843). This means that all of these patents and applications share the earliest priority date of June 16, 2006 (the filing date of US11/454,482). Therefore, US8437843 and US11432724, and the intervening applications, are not "prior art" in the sense of 35 U.S.C. § 102 for common subject matter, but rather represent earlier stages of the same inventive disclosure. Any claims in US11690512 that are fully supported by the disclosure of US8437843 or US11432724 and benefit from the common priority date would not be anticipated by these earlier patents within the same family. Prior art for US11690512 would typically refer to documents published or filed before the earliest priority date of June 16, 2006, by a different inventor or entity, or by the same inventor/entity but not sharing a continuous chain of priority.

However, since the prompt asks for "most relevant prior art" and specifically lists these patents as citations within the given text, they are presented here for their relevance to the scope of the invention, acknowledging their family relationship. If US11690512 introduces new matter not supported by the earlier applications in the chain, then those earlier applications could be considered prior art against the new matter.

Given the prompt's instruction to interpret identifiers literally, and the discrepancy found with US7032301, it is necessary to highlight this inconsistency. The description clearly refers to "Dry physiological recording electrodes" as being described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,032,301, but search results for that patent number indicate unrelated subject matter (a "Lock assembly" or "Rice oil-containing composition for use as cutting,penetrating or lubricating oil"). For the purpose of this analysis, I will proceed assuming the intended reference was to a patent describing dry physiological recording electrodes, as that is the context provided in US11690512 itself.

Based on the information provided in the "PTAB challenges" section of the previously generated analysis, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has already conducted an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 11690512 in IPR2025-00158. In its Final Written Decision, issued on June 4, 2026, the PTAB found all claims (1-28) of the patent unpatentable.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The PTAB determined that the challenged claims of US11690512 were obvious over specific combinations of prior art references. The general reasoning provided by the PTAB was that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to arrive at the claimed inventions, with a reasonable expectation of success.

1. Claims 1-9 and 19-27 were found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann.

• Targeted Claims: These claims generally describe a wireless sleep diagnosis device comprising electronic components for receiving and wirelessly transmitting signals from one or more sensors, along with at least one airflow sensor, at least one accelerometer, and a protective case (Claim 1 and 19, respectively, and their dependent claims).
• Prior Art Combination: Pustz and Stahmann.
• Motivation for Combination: In the field of medical diagnostics, particularly sleep studies, there is a continuous drive to develop more comprehensive, user-friendly, and accurate monitoring systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine existing technologies to integrate multiple physiological measurements into a single, portable device. Pustz (details not provided, but inferred from the PTAB's finding) likely taught core aspects of wireless physiological data acquisition or sleep monitoring. Stahmann (details not provided) likely provided teachings related to other relevant components, such as accelerometers for motion detection or specific aspects of wireless data transfer. Combining these known elements to create a wireless sleep diagnosis device capable of simultaneously monitoring airflow and body movement (as described in the claims) would be a logical step for improving diagnostic capabilities and artifact correction, a known challenge in biopotential signal acquisition. The integration of an accelerometer for motion detection is explicitly described in US11690512 as advantageous for motion artifact correction before wireless transmission, thereby lessening data transmission requirements.

2. Claims 10-18 and 28 were found unpatentable as obvious over Pustz in view of Stahmann and Rofougaran.

• Targeted Claims: These claims build upon the concepts of the previous group, specifically including an EEG sensor as part of the one or more sensors (Claim 10 and 28, respectively, and their dependent claims).
• Prior Art Combination: Pustz, Stahmann, and Rofougaran.
• Motivation for Combination: Given the motivation to create comprehensive sleep diagnostic systems, the inclusion of EEG sensing is a critical component for detailed sleep stage analysis and neurological monitoring. Pustz and Stahmann, as discussed, likely addressed wireless data acquisition and aspects like motion sensing. The addition of Rofougaran (details not provided) would have provided the missing elements or a clear teaching for integrating EEG sensing capabilities into such a wireless, multi-sensor platform. The patent itself highlights that EEG acquisition is more difficult due to the weak physiological signals but is crucial for applications like sleep studies and brain monitoring. A person of ordinary skill would recognize the benefit of combining known EEG acquisition methods (from Rofougaran or similar art) with the wireless data acquisition and artifact correction techniques (from Pustz and Stahmann) to achieve a more complete and effective wireless sleep diagnostic system with EEG capabilities. The motivation would be to provide a more thorough diagnostic tool, addressing the demand for remote, multi-parameter physiological monitoring, especially for weak signals like EEG while simultaneously handling more robust signals.

The PTAB concluded that these combinations would have been obvious, indicating that the individual elements were known in the art and that a skilled artisan would have had a clear motivation to combine them, with a reasonable expectation of achieving the claimed results, which were improvements in wireless, multi-parameter sleep diagnostics, and artifact correction.