[c0pium]

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]

This. 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]

Technically 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.

[withinboredom]

A 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.

[az226]

I think that has to be decided by jury/judge.

[c0pium]

What do you think this article was about, if not a judge and jury deciding this issue?