[thaumasiotes]

But the amount of processing necessary to trigger the patent is "any amount more than zero". Here's what claim 19, which Apple was adjudged to have indirectly violated, says about processing:

> [the user-worn device comprising, among other things: ] one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals, the measurements indicative of the oxygen saturation of the user.

So if your device includes one or more processors, and those processors aren't just decorative, you're in violation. What processing you do is not relevant; what's patented is that you do any processing of any kind.

Note that Apple's violation does not seem to have been related to data processing; they were adjudged to have directly violated claim 22, which is the device described in claim 19 plus a series of modifications and/or clarifications, of which the modification/clarification unique to claim 22 has to do with the configuration of the LEDs in the device.

If the problem had to do with their data processing, they probably would have been found in violation of claim 19 instead...?

[stefan_]

It's funny how these things work. They don't even specify the wavelength of the LEDs used, instead preferring to patent any wavelength imaginable. But obviously not all of them will work. Why was this allowed in a patent? How is this a valid description of what they built?

[ImPostingOnHN]

Why wouldn't it be allowed in a patent? As far as I know, there isn't a law that says patents have to specify the wavelengths used.

If you built it with wavelengths that worked, it'd be covered by the patent. If you built it with wavelengths that didn't work, it'd probably be useless.

[araes]

From Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP, Sections 2103 - 2106.07(c).)

"It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility."

“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”

Flowchart on Pg 19. Section 2016 for the general examination process: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf