Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
` Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-01217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`In accordance with Kansas Patent Local Rule 4.3, the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 48), and this
`
`Court’s Order (Dkt. 70), Plaintiff LoganTree LP (“LoganTree”) and Defendants Garmin
`
`International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”) submit this Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4.3(a)
`
`
`
`The parties agree to the construction of the term “interpreting” as recited in Claims 1 and
`
`20 as “analyzing.”
`
`Patent Local Rule 4.3(b)
`
`
`
`LoganTree’s proposed constructions of each disputed terms, together with an identification
`
`of all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that construction, and
`
`an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to LoganTree that it intends to rely upon, are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Garmin’s proposed constructions of each disputed terms, together with an identification of
`
`all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that construction, and an
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`identification of any extrinsic evidence known to Garmin that it intends to rely upon, are attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4.3(c)
`
`
`
` Of the terms identified in Exhibits A and B by LoganTree and Garmin, the construction
`
`of “unrestrained movement in any direction” will be the most significant to the resolution of the
`
`case—if Garmin’s argument for that term is adopted, that claim will be found indefinite which will
`
`be case dispositive.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4.3(d)
`
`
`
`The parties anticipate they will need one (1) hour for any Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4.3(e)
`
`
`
`The parties propose that the Claim Construction Hearing format match the format of the
`
`claim construction briefing: Garmin will present its terms and arguments first, LoganTree will then
`
`respond with its own terms and arguments, and then Garmin would be given a chance to rebut.
`
`Garmin proposes that it be given twenty-five (25) minutes for its opening argument, LoganTree
`
`be given thirty (30) minutes for its response, and Garmin be given five (5) minutes for its rebuttal.
`
`The parties do not believe witnesses will be necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Clayton J. Kaiser
`Clayton J. Kaiser, #24066
`Foulston Siefkin LLP
`1551 N. Waterfront Pkwy, Suite 100
`Wichita, Kansas 67206
`(316) 291-9539
`(866) 280-2532 FAX
`Email: ckaiser@foulston.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher M. Barkley
`Arnold Shokouhi, TX (pro hac vice)
`Christopher M. Barkley (pro hac vice)
`James E. Sherry, TX (pro hac vice)
`
`McCathern, PLLC
`
`
`
`3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
`
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`(214) 443-4478
`
`
`(214) 741-4717 FAX
`
`Email: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
`Email: cbarkley@mccathernlaw.com
`Email: jsherry@mccathernlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff LoganTree LP
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Clifford T. Brazen
`Adam P. Seitz, KS Bar #21059
`Megan J. Redmond, KS Bar #21999
`Carrie A. Bader, KS Bar #24436
`Clifford T. Brazen, KS Bar #27408
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite. 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Phone: 913.777.5600
`Facsimile: 913.777.5601
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`megan.redmond@eriseip.com
`carrie.bader@eriseip.com
`cliff.brazen@eriseip.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Garmin International, Inc.
`and Garmin USA, Inc.
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 22
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`Claim Terms LoganTree’s Proposed Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`axes
`along multiple
`“movement
`without restraint to the movement”
`
`“Unrestrained
`movement in
`any direction”
`– Claims 1
`and 20
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Figures 2A, 2B and 2C. ‘576 Patent,
`Sheets 2 and 3.
`
`self-contained
`downloadable,
`“The
`device can be worn at various positions
`along the torso or appendages being
`monitored depending on the specific
`physical task being performed.” ‘576
`Patent at 2:21-24
`
`movement
`self-contained
`“The
`measuring device 12 may be worn by the
`individual being monitored in a variety of
`positions based on the specific movement
`being observed, the particular application
`in which the device is used, and the
`convenience of the wearer.” ‘576 Patent
`at 3:25-31
`
`“For example, FIG. 2A shows placement
`of the movement measuring device 12 on
`the upper torso of an individual 18.
`Placement of the device 12 at this location
`will allow monitoring of the flexion and
`extension of the spinal column during a
`lifting activity. Similarly, FIG. 2B shows
`placement of the movement measuring
`device 12 on the waist or hip of an
`individual 18. The movement measuring
`device 12 may be attached via a clip,
`Velcro, its own belt, or any other means
`known in the art. Placement of the device
`12 on the belt as shown will also permit
`monitoring of the individual's movement
`during physical activity. In particular, the
`device 12 can monitor the forward and
`backward bending of the spine as well as
`lateral bending of the spine to aid in
`correct bending and lifting tasks. The
`device 12 is also capable of measuring the
`distance the wearer walks and how fast he
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`another
`shows
`walked. FIG. 2C
`alternative embodiment of the movement
`measuring device 12. In this version, the
`movement sensor 13 is separate from the
`remaining components 15 of the device
`12 and is electronically connected to the
`remaining components 15 via a cable 17
`or other commonly used connector.
`Separating the measurement sensor 13
`from the remaining components 15 in this
`way gives additional flexibility in the use
`of the device 12. The device 12 operates
`in
`the same manner as previously
`described; however, the movement sensor
`13 can be placed anywhere on the
`individual's body. Again, the specific
`application will dictate where
`the
`movement sensor 13 should be placed.
`For example, if a monitored activity
`requires repeated arm movement, the
`sensor 13 may be placed anywhere along
`the individual's arm thereby monitoring
`and recording movement data for the
`arm.” ‘576 Patent at 3:31-62
`
`“Although many accelerometers are
`available on the market, the preferred
`embodiment uses Part No. AD22217
`manufactured by Analog Devices of
`Norwood, Mass. This component is a low
`G, multi-axis accelerometer.” ‘576 Patent
`at 4:48-52
`
`“The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2,
`4-7, 9-11, 13-17, 21, 23-27 and 29 under
`Section 102(b) as being anticipated by
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,052,375 issued to Stark et
`al. The Examiner states
`that Stark
`"broadly discloses the concept of the
`system and method
`for monitoring
`physical movement of the body part." The
`Examiner apparently misunderstands the
`applicant's invention. Stark describes an
`orthopedic limb immobilization device
`while applicant's invention is designed to
`measure an individual's free movement of
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`torso. In particular, Stark's
`limb or
`invention is an orthopedic restraining
`device
`used
`to
`immobilize
`and
`rehabilitate
`injured human
`limbs by
`providing
`controlled
`resistance
`to
`movement of
`the
`limb. The device
`monitors the force exerted by the wearer
`via
`the
`injured
`limb
`through stress
`sensing means. And it is this sensed data
`which is monitored and recorded by the
`device.
` The only
`real movement
`measured by Stark's device is the relative
`angular position of
`the "distal end
`sections" of the device (col. 2, line 55-58)
`about an adjustable hinge. Stark does not
`describe a highly portable device used to
`measure torso or limb movement along
`multiple axes, including distance and
`speed of the movement, without any
`restraint to the movement as is taught by
`invention. Thus, Stark's
`applicant's
`disclosure does not anticipate any of the
`claims made by the applicant in the
`present invention.” ‘576 Patent, Original
`Prosecution File History, Amendment &
`Response dated May 4, 1999, initialed by
`Examiner, page 3.
`
`“The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 22,
`28 and 30 under Section 103 as being
`unpatentable over Stark in view of Pratt.
`However, this rejection is ill-founded.
`Pratt, just as with Stark, discloses a device
`which is a "resisting apparatus" (col. 3,
`lines 8-9). This is in direct opposition to
`applicant's device which allows
`the
`wearer to move in any desired direction
`and with any desired speed for purposes
`of monitoring the wearer's movement.
`Thus, while both Stark and Pratt disclose
`devices used to restrain or resist the
`wearer's movement, applicant's device
`does not and in fact could not in order for
`it to be used for its intended purpose. The
`wearer of the applicant's device is not
`restrained in any way, and this is critical
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`in order to monitor the wearer's natural
`motion for analysis, whether while
`performing physical labor or athletic
`drills. Furthermore, applicant's invention
`measures and records a wide variation of
`movement speeds whereas Pratt simply
`controls the device resistance in order to
`maintain constant speed throughout the
`movement (claim 6). Thus, nothing in
`these two references integrate to form the
`unique and non- obvious aspects claimed
`in claims 3, 22, 28 and 30.” ‘576 Patent,
`Original Prosecution File History,
`Amendment & Response dated May 4,
`1999, initialed by Examiner, pages 3-4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur Reply, at pp. 4-6,
`IPR2018-00564 (Paper 19, April 15,
`2019)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur Reply, at pp. 1-3,
`IPR2018-00565 (Paper 19, April 15,
`2019)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“It is another object of this invention to
`provide a system which monitors, records
`and analyzes the time, date, angle of
`movement, and angular velocity of
`physical movement
`for
`subsequent
`interpretation.” ‘576 Patent at 2:38-41
`
`“The microprocessor 32 is connected to a
`clock 46 which is used as an internal
`clock for coordinating the functioning of
`the microprocessor 32. The clock 46 also
`serves as a real time clock to provide date
`and
`time
`information
`to
`the
`microprocessor 32. The clock 46 may
`have its own clock battery 48 or may
`receive power directly from power source
`38.” ‘576 Patent at 5:33-39
`
`“The microprocessor 32 constantly
`monitors the movement data received
`
`no
`that
`believes
`LoganTree
`construction of this language is needed.
`To the extent the Court chooses to
`construe it, LoganTree believes that the
`following construction is appropriate:
`
`information
`stamp
`time
`“First
`reflecting a system time associated
`with the movement data occurrence
`causing the first user-defined event.”
`
`time
`
`“First
`stamp
`information
`a
`reflecting
`time at which
`the movement
`data causing
`the first user-
`defined event
`occurred”
`–
`Claims 1 and
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`from the movement sensor 30. The
`microprocessor
`32
`analyzes
`the
`movement data received from the sensor
`30
`and,
`based
`on
`its
`internal
`programming, responds to the data. If a
`recordable
`event
`occurs,
`the
`microprocessor 32 retrieves the date/time
`stamp from the clock 46 and records the
`event
`information along with
`the
`date/time stamp in memory 50.” ‘576
`Patent at 5:40-47
`
`Claims 30 and 104 of ‘576 Patent
`
`Remarks and Statements made by the
`Applicant and the Examiner in the
`Reexamination File History. LoganTree
`Productions 0000001 – 0000561
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Time stamp – (1) To apply the current
`system time. (2) the value on an object
`that is an indication of the system time
`at some critical point in the history of
`(IBM Dictionary
`the
`object.
`Computing, George
`McDaniel, copyright 1994 by
`International Business Machines
`Corporation, pg. 694)
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`of
`
`Figures 2A and 2B. ‘576 Patent, Sheet 2.
`
`“It is another object of this invention to
`provide a system which monitors, records
`and analyzes the time, date, angle of
`movement, and angular velocity of
`physical movement
`for
`subsequent
`interpretation.” ‘576 Patent at 2:38-41
`
`“For example, FIG. 2A shows placement
`of the movement measuring device 12 on
`the upper torso of an individual 18.
`Placement of the device 12 at this location
`will allow monitoring of the flexion and
`
`“Angle” –
`Claim 1
`
`
`no
`that
`believes
`LoganTree
`construction of this language is needed.
`To the extent the Court chooses to
`construe it, LoganTree believes that the
`following construction is appropriate:
`
`“a measure of
`movement”
`
`the amount of
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`extension of the spinal column during a
`lifting activity. Similarly, FIG. 2B shows
`placement of the movement measuring
`device 12 on the waist or hip of an
`individual 18. The movement measuring
`device 12 may be attached via a clip,
`Velcro, its own belt, or any other means
`known in the art. Placement of the device
`12 on the belt as shown will also permit
`monitoring of the individual's movement
`during physical activity. In particular, the
`device 12 can monitor the forward and
`backward bending of the spine as well as
`lateral bending of the spine to aid in
`correct bending and lifting tasks. The
`device 12 is also capable of measuring the
`distance the wearer walks and how fast he
`walked. FIG. 2C
`shows
`another
`alternative embodiment of the movement
`measuring device 12. In this version, the
`movement sensor 13 is separate from the
`remaining components 15 of the device
`12 and is electronically connected to the
`remaining components 15 via a cable 17
`or other commonly used connector.
`Separating the measurement sensor 13
`from the remaining components 15 in this
`way gives additional flexibility in the use
`of the device 12. The device 12 operates
`in
`the same manner as previously
`described; however, the movement sensor
`13 can be placed anywhere on the
`individual's body. Again, the specific
`application will dictate where
`the
`movement sensor 13 should be placed.
`For example, if a monitored activity
`requires repeated arm movement, the
`sensor 13 may be placed anywhere along
`the individual's arm thereby monitoring
`and recording movement data for the
`arm.” ‘576 Patent at 3:32-62
`
`“Reference is now made to a block
`diagram in FIG. 4 which shows the major
`internal components of the movement
`measuring
`device
`12
`and
`their
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`interconnections. The device 12 includes
`a movement sensor 30 which detects
`movement and measures associated data
`such as angle, speed, and distance. The
`movement sensor 30 generates signals
`corresponding to the measurement data
`collected. In a preferred embodiment, the
`movement sensor 30 is an accelerometer
`which is capable of detecting angles of
`movement in multiple planes as well as
`the velocity at which the movement
`occurs.
`Alternatively,
`multiple
`accelerometers,
`each
`capable
`of
`measuring angles of movement in only
`one plane, may be oriented within the
`device 12 so that movement in multiple
`planes may be detected. Although many
`accelerometers are available on
`the
`market, the preferred embodiment uses
`Part No. AD22217 manufactured by
`Analog Devices of Norwood, Mass. This
`component
`is a
`low G, multi-axis
`accelerometer.” ‘576 Patent at 3:35-52
`
`“The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2,
`4-7, 9-11, 13-17, 21, 23-27 and 29 under
`Section 102(b) as being anticipated by
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,052,375 issued to Stark et
`al. The Examiner states
`that Stark
`"broadly discloses the concept of the
`system and method
`for monitoring
`physical movement of the body part." The
`Examiner apparently misunderstands the
`applicant's invention. Stark describes an
`orthopedic limb immobilization device
`while applicant's invention is designed to
`measure an individual's free movement of
`limb or
`torso. In particular, Stark's
`invention is an orthopedic restraining
`device
`used
`to
`immobilize
`and
`rehabilitate
`injured human
`limbs by
`providing
`controlled
`resistance
`to
`movement of
`the
`limb. The device
`monitors the force exerted by the wearer
`via
`the
`injured
`limb
`through stress
`sensing means. And it is this sensed data
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`which is monitored and recorded by the
`device.
` The only
`real movement
`measured by Stark's device is the relative
`angular position of
`the "distal end
`sections" of the device (col. 2, line 55-58)
`about an adjustable hinge. Stark does not
`describe a highly portable device used to
`measure torso or limb movement along
`multiple axes, including distance and
`speed of the movement, without any
`restraint to the movement as is taught by
`applicant's
`invention. Thus, Stark's
`disclosure does not anticipate any of the
`claims made by the applicant in the
`present invention.” ‘576 Patent, Original
`Prosecution File History, Amendment &
`Response dated May 4, 1999, initialed by
`Examiner, page 3.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`angle - b: a measure of the amount of
`turning necessary to bring one line or
`plane into coincidence with or parallel to
`another (Webster's New Collegiate
`Dictionary, G. and C. Merriam
`Company, 1981, pg. 44.)
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“In order to prevent incorrect movement
`in hopes of reducing injuries, lost man
`hours, and workmen's compensation
`claims, a device must not only be able to
`record
`the
`frequency of
`improper
`movements, but also monitor the angular
`velocity and general tendencies of the
`wearer with
`regard
`to
`the unsafe
`movement habits. The angular velocity of
`any physical action affects the stretching
`and tautness of the muscle involved in the
`motion. Thus, information on angular
`velocity is important to monitoring and
`analyzing improper movement.” ‘576
`Patent at 1:58-67
`
`“It is another object of this invention to
`
`“Velocity” –
`Claim 1
`
`no
`that
`believes
`LoganTree
`construction of this language is needed.
`To the extent the Court chooses to
`construe it, LoganTree believes that the
`following construction is appropriate:
`
`“rate of change of angular position”
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`provide a system which monitors, records
`and analyzes the time, date, angle of
`movement, and angular velocity of
`physical movement
`for
`subsequent
`interpretation.” ‘576 Patent at 2:38-41
`
`“The device 12 includes a movement
`sensor 30 which detects movement and
`measures associated data such as angle,
`speed, and distance. The movement
`sensor
`30
`generates
`signals
`corresponding to the measurement data
`collected. In a preferred embodiment, the
`movement sensor 30 is an accelerometer
`which is capable of detecting angles of
`movement in multiple planes as well as
`the velocity at which the movement
`occurs.” ‘576 Patent at 4:37-45
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`angular velocity – the time rate of change
`of angular position that has direction and
`sense such that the motion appears clock-
`wise to one looking in the direction of the
`vector (Webster's New Collegiate
`Dictionary, G. and C. Merriam
`Company, 1981, pg. 44.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 14 of 22
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`“unrestrained
`movement in any
`direction” – Claims 1,
`20
`
`
`“First time stamp
`information reflecting
`a time at which the
`movement data
`causing the first user-
`defined event
`occurred” – Claims 1
`and 20
`
`GARMIN’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`This claim term is
`indefinite under § 112, ¶
`2 due to LoganTree’s
`inconsistent and
`opposite application of
`the phrase “unrestrained
`movement in any
`direction” before the
`U.S. Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board and this
`Court. Given
`LoganTree’s
`inconsistent positions,
`the claimed phrase is
`indefinite because it fails
`to provide a PHOSITA
`with reasonable certainty
`regarding the invention’s
`scope.
`
`First time stamp
`information reflecting a
`system time at which the
`movement data causing
`the first user-defined
`event occurred.
`
`
`SUPPORT
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, at pp.13-16,
`IPR2018-00564 (Paper 13, Dec. 14,
`2018)
`
`Patent Owner’s EX2001, at ¶¶ 45, 59,
`IPR2018-00564;
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, at pp. 15-18,
`IPR2018-00565 (Paper 13, Dec. 14,
`2018);
`
`Patent Owner’s EX2001, ¶¶ 45, 58,
`IPR2018-00565;
`
`LoganTree’s Infringement Contentions
`and Amended Infringement
`Contentions, at Appendices A-C.
`
`Intrinsic
`
`“That is, the time stamp described in
`Burdea is related to the updated time at
`which the patient data (allegedly the
`claimed movement data) is updated at
`the database 114. On the other hand, in
`the claimed invention, the time stamp is
`related to the movement time at which
`the movement sensor senses the
`movement…. As such, rather than
`maintaining time stamps with respect to
`the times at which movement data is
`updated in a database (as disclosed by
`Burdea), in the claimed invention, the
`microprocessor (which is included in
`the claimed portable, self-contained
`device) retrieves at least one time
`stamp from the real-time clock and
`associates the retrieved time stamp with
`the received movement data.” ’56
`Reexamination file history, 2014 09 12
`Amendment after final or under 37CFR
`1.312, initialed by the examiner, pg. 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`Remarks and Statements made by the
`Applicant and the Examiner in the
`Reexamination File History. LoganTree
`Productions 0000001 - 0000561
`
`“Richardson describes reporting a
`cruise control alarm trigger whenever
`the user's locomotor speed goes
`consistently into or consistently out of a
`chosen speed band. Id. at
`30:12-23. However, a POSITA would
`understand that Richardson neither
`teaches nor suggests storing time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which
`the movement data
`causing the first user-defined event
`occurred. EX2001, Figure A4 and ¶¶
`50 and 94. Rather, Richardson, as
`understood by a POSITA, merely places
`a time of every footfall in a step queue,
`with no relation to an event.
`Richardson, based on the evidence in
`the record, calculates average (or
`cumulative) speed or velocity or an
`average heart rate, and then sounds an
`alarm if the average speed is not
`consistently within a band or if the
`average heart rate goes consistently in
`and out of a certain band. See, for
`example, EX1009, 30:1-10. Per Dr.
`Madisetti, the use of the terms
`“average” and “consistently” indicate
`statistical parameters calculated over a
`time horizon, and do not reflect the time
`stamp of the movement data, and
`further there is no evidence in
`Richardson that such an alleged time
`stamp (if one exists, and a POSITA
`would understand one does not) is also
`stored. EX2001, ¶ 95. A POSITA would
`not view the event information as
`having time stamps associated with
`them that reflect the time at which the
`movement data occurred. Id. at Figure
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 17 of 22
`
`A4 and ¶¶ 50 and 95. As an example, a
`POSITA
`would understand that a running
`average calculation does not indicate
`the time at which a particular data
`sample that was used to calculate it
`occurred. Id. at ¶ 95. LoganTree agrees
`with the Board, at pages 21-22 of the
`Institution Decision, that states:
`Petitioner argues that if a user-defined
`event is the duration of exercise
`activity, then Richardson discloses this
`limitation. See Pet. 67–68. However,
`the user-defined event is based on
`movement data, rather than time alone.
`Petitioner also argues that this
`limitation is satisfied because
`Richardson calculates the time of a
`step’s footfall, and that when a cruise
`control alarm condition is triggered the
`footfall is recorded. Pet. 69 (citing, e.g.,
`Ex. 1009, 29:48–51). Although, every
`footfall is recorded, it is unclear that
`the timestamp would “reflect” the time
`at which the movement data causing the
`event occurred, as recited. We note that
`we interpret claims in this proceeding
`under standard set forth in Phillips. Dr.
`Singer does not provide testimony as to
`whether the “reflecting” limitation
`would be satisfied. Petitioner argues
`that Richardson discloses the
`“reflecting” limitation but does not
`argue that the limitation would have
`been suggested by or otherwise obvious
`over the references beyond express
`disclosure…” IPR2018 - 00564 paper
`13 (PO’s Response), pg. 35-37, see also
`IPR2018 – 00565 paper 13 (PO’s
`Response), pg. 38-39
`
`“When a pre-programmed recordable
`event is recognized, the device
`records the time and date of the
`occurrence while providing
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 18 of 22
`
`feedback to the wearer Via Visual,
`audible and/or tactile warnings.” ‘576
`patent at 2:25-29
`
`“The microprocessor 32 is connected
`to a clock 46 which is used as an
`internal clock for coordinating the
`functioning of the microprocessor 32.
`The clock 46 also serves as a real
`time clock to provide date and time
`information to the microprocessor 32.
`The clock 46 may have its own clock
`battery 48 or may receive power
`directly from power source 38. The
`microprocessor 32 constantly
`monitors the movement data received
`from the movement sensor 30. The
`microprocessor 32 analyzes the
`movement data received from the
`Sensor 30 and, based on its internal
`programming,
`responds to the data. If a recordable
`event occurs, the microprocessor 32
`retrieves the date/time Stamp from the
`clock 46 and records the event
`information along with the date/time
`stamp in memory 50.” ‘576 patent at
`5:33-47; see also i.d. at 5:67-6:9, see
`also i.d. at 6:19-21; see also i.d. at
`7:32-37; see also i.d. at 9:45-51; see
`also i.d. at 10:3-6
`
`“Lastly, I would like to talk about
`Richardson and the reflecting
`limitation. Richardson's device -- well,
`let me start with Garmin's contention.
`The petitioner puts together pieces for
`Richardson in different moments.
`Basically they say for first event
`information they rely on user speed
`triggering the alarm conditions stored
`in RAM and underlying acceleration
`data related to the detected first user-
`defined event. They rely on the cruise
`control alarm trigger because user
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 19 of 22
`
`speed was out of the desired range
`along with first timestamp information
`reflecting a time in which the movement
`data causing the first user-defined
`event occurred. In other words, the
`timestamp stored with the acceleration
`sample that triggered the cruise control
`alarm.
`I guess the first point that patent owner
`would like to make is that when the
`cruise control alarm is triggered in
`Richardson, nothing is disclosed in
`Richardson that there is any storing
`going on when that happens. Rather, it
`really talks about sending an alarm.
`Your speed is too low.” IPR2018-
`00564/00565, Paper 24 (Record of Oral
`Hearing) at 35:5-20
`
`Extrinsic
`Time stamp – (2) the value on an object
`that is an indication of the system time
`at some critical point in the history of
`the object. (3) in query, the
`identification of the day and time when
`a query report was created that query
`automatically provides on each report
`(IBM Dictionary of Computing, George
`McDaniel, copyright 1994 by
`International Business Machines
`Corporation, pg. 694)
`
`Time and date – In computing, the
`timekeeping and datekeeping functions
`maintained by the computer’s operation
`system, used most visibly as a means of
`“stamping” files with the date and time
`of creation or last version (Microsoft
`Press Computer Dictionary third
`edition, copyright 1997 by Microsoft
`Corporation, pg. 469)
`
`Time and date – in computing, the
`timekeeping and datekeeping functions
`maintained by the computer’s operating
`system, used most visibly as a means of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 20 of 22
`
`“stamping” files with the date and time
`of creation or last revision. In a
`computer such as an IBM PC/AT, one
`of the PS/2 series, or an Apple
`Macintosh, the time and date are kept
`by an internal, battery-powered, real-
`time clock, which continues running
`even when the machine is turned off.
`Thus, the system can check the clock to
`determine the correct time and
`calendar date when the computer is
`turned on (Microsoft Press Computer
`Dictionary, second edition, copyright
`1994 by Microsoft Press, pg. 388-389)
`
`Time stamp – a device for recording the
`date and time of day that letters or
`papers are received or sent out
`(Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary,
`copyright 1981 by G. C. Merriam, pg.
`1213)
`
`Time stamp – a time signature that is
`added by a program or system to files,
`e-mail messages, or web pages. A time
`stamp indicates the time and usually the
`date when a file or Web page was
`created or last modified or when an e-
`mail message was sent or received.
`Most time stamps are created by
`programs and are based on the time
`kept by the system clock of a computer
`on which the program resides.
`Commercial time stamp services are
`available on the Web or by e-mail, and
`offer proof of posting certificates to
`corroborate the time and date a
`message was sent (Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary Fifth edition, copyright
`2002 by Microsoft Corporation, pg.
`521)
`
`Time – the measure of the duration of
`an event. The fundamental unit of time
`is the second (Seventh edition modern
`dictionary of electronics, Rudolf F.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 21 of 22
`
`Graf, copyright 1999 by Rudolf F.
`Graf, pg. 783)
`
`“The TIMESTAMP datatype is an
`extension of the DATE datatype. It
`stores the year, month, and day of
`the DATE datatype, plus the hour,
`minute, and second values”
`(Pro*COBOL® Programmer’s Guide
`11g, Release 2 (11.2), Part I
`Introduction and Concepts: 4 Datatypes
`and Host Variables, https:/
`/docs.oracle.com/cd/E18283_01/app
`Dev.112/e10826/pco04dat.htm#inserted
`ID2)
`
`Extrinsic:
`angle - 2a. Figure formed by two lines
`extending from the same point or by
`two surfaces diverging from the same
`line (Webster's New Collegiate
`Dictionary, G. and C. Merriam
`Company, 1981, pg. 44.)
`
`Intrinsic
`“It is another object of this invention to
`provide a system which monitors,
`records and analyzes the time, date,
`angle of movement, and angular
`velocity of physical movement for
`subsequent interpretation.” (‘576 spec.,
`2:37-40)
`
`Extrinsic:
`The time rate of change of position of a
`body in a particular direction. Linear
`velocity is velocity along a straight line,
`and its magnitude is commonly
`measured in such units as meters per
`second (m/s), feet per second (ft/s), and
`miles per hour (mi/h). Since both a
`magnitude and a direction are implied
`in a measurement of velocity, velocity is
`a directed or vector quantity, and to
`specify a given velocity completely, the
`direction must always be given.
`
`“Angle”
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`“The space between two
`intersecting planes at the
`point where they meet”
`
`“Velocity” - Claim 1
`
`“speed of something in a
`given direction”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 82 Filed 04/03/20 Page 22 of 22
`
`(McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
`Engineering: Velocity, second edition,
`edited by Sybil B. Parker, McGraw-
`Hill, Inc., 1993, p. 1305
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`