I'm sure this kind of analysis must be out there, but I searched through a couple of posts and lots of comment threads and primarily saw a lot of conjecture but no actual references to what was really under debate.
I'm sure this kind of analysis must be out there, but I searched through a couple of posts and lots of comment threads and primarily saw a lot of conjecture but no actual references to what was really under debate.
“In the first two weeks that Lamego was at Apple, he filed 12 patents for medical and sensor technologies for the Watch. Though he would only stay at the company for six months, Lamego would be named as an inventor on many more.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-10-05...
You can be sure the issues of novelty and non-obviousness were argued there. Does that mean they'll be clear to you? Heh.
Pro tip: the history is in reverse chronological order. Any doc that's only one page, you can probably ignore. All the arguments are in multi-page PDF's.
- "Multiple wavelength sensor substrate" https://patents.google.com/patent/US7761127B2/en
- "Physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10687745B1/en
- "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912501B2/en