| Here is the ruling against Apple: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC... The relevant patent claims are identified: > the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent. (Many more claims were included in the complaint, but Apple didn't lose on those claims.) These are the '502 and '648 patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en > 22. The user-worn device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of emitters comprise at least four emitters, and wherein each of the plurality of emitters comprises a respective set of at least three LEDs. > 28. [This is one of the base descriptions; too long to pull as a quote.] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en > 12. The user-worn device of claim 8, wherein the physiological parameter comprises oxygen or oxygen saturation. > 24. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping. > 30. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion further comprises one or more chamfered edges. The easiest way to avoid this set of patents appears to be to use less than three LEDs. I assume that will produce a more unreliable reading, but increasing the number of LEDs does not appear to be considered an "obvious" approach to that problem. |
But these Apple Watches are not approved by the FDA as medical devices and are less accurate than a pulse oxomiter. Even FitBit doesn’t try to fool anyone.
So what’s the real market to add in measuring oxygen levels? Wellness? You have to not move to use it and we already know the measurements are not accurate.
Feels like they added it to sell more watches and seems like they really bought the farm this time