DOCKET NO: ILIF01-00168
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`U.S. PATENT NO: 6,307,481
`
`
`
`
`
`INVENTOR: Michael L. Lehrman
`Michael E. Halleck, Alan R. Owens
`
`TRIAL NO: IPR2015-00105
`
`ISSUED: October 23, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: September 15, 199
`
`
`
`
`
`TITLE: SYSTEMS FOR EVALUATING
`MOVEMENT OF A BODY AND
` METHOD OF OPERATING THE
`SAME
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT H. STURGES
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 1
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Paragraph
`QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 2-5
`
`MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................... 6-7
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE iLIFE PATENTS ..................................................... 8-20
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ............................................................................ 22-31
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill Relating to the iLife Patents .............................. 23-24
`
`Manner of Interpretation ................................................................................ 25
`
`Adopted Express Definitions and Preliminary Claim
`Constructions ........................................................................................... 26-31
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS .............................................................................................. 32-100
`
`
`Unuma Does Not Render the iLife Patents Obvious ............................... 35-75
`
`
`A. Unuma is functionally distinct from the iLife
`Patents ................................................................................. 36-54
`B. Unuma describes a completely different way of
`processing the accelerative events of a body as
`compared with the iLife Patents ......................................... 55-64
`C. Unuma discloses a system producing results that
`are different from the invention of the iLife Patents .......... 65-66
`D. Unuma contains many technically incorrect
`assertions that are self-evident to those of ordinary
`skill in the relevant art, and would not be
`considered reliable by those having ordinary skill
`in the relevant art ................................................................. 67-75
`
`
`Unuma Fails to Provide an Enabling Disclosure for All Claim
`Limitations ............................................................................................... 76-93
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Not a Mere Predicable Variant of
`Unuma ...................................................................................................... 94-96
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 2
`
`

`
`
`Yasushi Does Not Render the Claims Obvious ..................................... 97-100
`
`
`SUPPORT FOR CLAIM LIMITATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL
`PATENT APPLICATION ............................................................................. 101-109
`
`
`“3-D” (“Relative To a Three Dimensional Frame of Reference
`in Said Environment”) ......................................................................... 105-107
`
`“Communications Device” .................................................................. 108-109
`
`
`CONCEPTION AND ACTUAL REDUCTION TO PRACTICE ................ 110-115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 3
`
`

`
`I, Dr. Robert H. Sturges, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by iLife Technologies, Inc. to provide an
`
`independent analysis of issues raised in the Inter Partes review proceedings
`
`pending before the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”) relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,307,481 (“the ‘481 Patent”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,703,939 (“the ‘939 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,864,796 (“the ‘796 Patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,095,331 (“the ‘331 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,145,461 (“the
`
`‘461 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,479,890 (“the ‘890 Patent”) (collectively “the
`
`iLife Patents”). I am being compensated only at my normal hourly rate for my
`
`time actually spent reviewing and providing other consulting services in this
`
`matter, in addition to reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. I have not been
`
`promised and will not receive any additional compensation based on the outcome
`
`of this proceeding. A listing of cases in which I have previously been deposed or
`
`testified is appended (“Appendix B”).
`
`QUALIFICATIONS:
`
`2.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Departments of Mechanical and
`
`Industrial Systems Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (“Virginia Tech”).
`
`From 1987 to 1997, I was first an Assistant Professor and then later an Associate
`
`Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Carnegie Mellon
`
`University. I have a combined Bachelors of Science and Masters of Science
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 4
`
`

`
`degree in mechanical engineering from M.I.T. and a Ph.D. in mechanical
`
`engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. My activities, accomplishments,
`
`and publications (including patents) are described more fully in my appended
`
`curriculum vitae (“Appendix A”).
`
`3. My background and training includes design and use of sensors and
`
`sensor systems, actuators, and controls in various areas of application including the
`
`field robotics and human subject measurements. I teach undergraduate courses in
`
`design, manufacturing (which includes tolerances), robotics, automation, and
`
`control. I also teach graduate courses in robotics and automation. My background
`
`in mathematics and physics includes vector calculus, vibrations, numerical
`
`methods, frequency spectrum analysis, circuit analysis and design, computer
`
`science (including pattern recognition), and FM synthesis. I have written papers
`
`and proposals on the acoustic analysis of machine tools, vibration analysis of ships
`
`at sea, and the performance of objects and human subjects during accelerative
`
`states. In my research work, I have performed measurements (including
`
`acceleration, orientation, position, and pose) in an experimental setting. I have
`
`partnered with one of the world’s leading experts in “slip and fall” research.
`
`4.
`
`Based upon my knowledge and experience in the above fields,
`
`including work and other experience prior to and contemporaneous with the filings
`
`resulting in the iLife Patents, I have personal knowledge regarding, and am
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 5
`
`

`
`otherwise aware of, the needs in the field and the problems facing those of ordinary
`
`skill in the field at the time of the invention of the subject matter claimed in the
`
`iLife Patents. This includes knowledge of contemporaneous systems, standards,
`
`and solutions for locomotive and dexterous biomechanical performance metric
`
`problems in various environments.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my education, experience, and knowledge described above
`
`and in my appended curriculum vitae, I believe that I am considered to be an
`
`expert in the field and art to which the iLife Patents relate, and I consider myself to
`
`be an expert in that field and art. That field and art generally encompasses
`
`experimental design, sensor measurement and analysis, and prediction of responses
`
`by objects and human subjects due to environmental circumstances.
`
`MATERIALS REVIEWED:
`
`6.
`
`In reviewing this matter, I have considered and analyzed the following
`
`publications and materials:
`
` the iLife Patents: the ‘481 Patent (IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1001); the
`
`‘939 Patent (IPR2015-00106, Exhibit No. 1001); the ‘796 Patent (IPR2015-
`
`00109, Exhibit No. 1001); the ‘331 Patent (IPR2015-00112, Exhibit No.
`
`1001); the ‘461 Patent (IPR2015-00113, Exhibit No. 1001); and the ‘890
`
`Patent (IPR2015-00115, Exhibit No. 1001);
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 6
`
`

`
` the Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the iLife Patents: IPR2015-00105,
`
`Paper No. 1; IPR2015-00106, Paper No. 1; IPR2015-00109, Paper No. 1;
`
`IPR2015-00112, Paper No. 1; IPR2015-00113, Paper No. 1; and IPR2015-
`
`00115, Paper No. 1;
`
` the various Declarations of Gregory Francis Welch, Ph.D. Concerning the
`
`iLife Patents: IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1002; IPR2015-00106, Exhibit
`
`No. 1002; IPR2015-00109, Exhibit No. 1002; IPR2015-00112, Exhibit No.
`
`1002; IPR2015-00113, Exhibit No. 1002); and IPR2015-00115, Exhibit No.
`
`1002;
`
` the ‘iLife Patent Family Tree and Priority Chart” prepared by the Petitioner:
`
`IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1012; IPR2015-00106, Exhibit No. 1009;
`
`IPR2015-00109, Exhibit No. 1008; IPR2015-00112, Exhibit No. 1010;
`
`IPR2015-00113, Exhibit No. 1014); and IPR2015-00115, Exhibit No. 1011;
`
` European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 816 986 A2 (“Unuma”):
`
`IPR2015-00105, Exhibit 1003, IPR2015-00106, Exhibit No. 1004, IPR2015-
`
`00112, Exhibit No. 1004, IPR2015-00113, Exhibit No. 1003, IPR2015-
`
`00115, Exhibit No. 1004;1
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,678,562 (“Sellers”): IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1004;
`
`
`1 Since Unuma is Exhibit 1003 in some proceedings and Exhibit 1004 in others, “Exhibit
`1003/4” will be used to identify the appropriate exhibit in all relevant proceedings.
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 7
`
`

`
` Japanese Laid Open Patent Application No. H10-165395 (“Kurokawa”):
`
`IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1005;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,040,175 (“Tuch”): IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1006;
`
` H. Samuels, “Single- and Dual-Axis Micromachined Accelerometers,”
`
`Analog Dialogue, vol. 30, no. 4 (1996) (“Samuels”): IPR2015-00105,
`
`Exhibit No. 1007;
`
` Japanese Laid Open Patent Application No. H10-40483 (“Okuno”):
`
`IPR2015-00105, Exhibit No. 1008;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,757,360 (“Nitta”): IPR2015-001015, Exhibit No. 1009;
`
` Japanese Laid Open Patent Application No. H10-295649 (“Yasushi”):
`
`IPR2015-00115, Exhibit No. 1003;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,110,741 (“Hubert”): IPR2015-00113, Exhibit No. 1004;
`
` the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses in the above-identified Inter
`
`Partes Review of the iLife Patents: IPR2015-00105, Paper No. 9; IPR2015-
`
`00106, Paper No. 9; IPR2015-00109, Paper No. 9; IPR2015-00112, Paper
`
`No. 9; IPR2015-00113, Paper No. 9; and IPR2015-00115, Paper No. 9;
`
` the Institution Decisions in the above-identified Inter Partes Review of the
`
`iLife Patents: IPR2015-00105, Paper No. 12; IPR2015-00106, Paper No.
`
`12; IPR2015-00109, Paper No. 12; IPR2015-00112, Paper No. 12; IPR2015-
`
`00113, Paper No. 12; and IPR2015-00115, Paper No. 12;
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 8
`
`

`
` the Declaration of Michael L. Lehrman (Exhibit 2007);
`
` the Declaration of Michael D. Halleck (Exhibit 2008);
`
` the Declaration of Michael E. Halleck (Exhibit 2009);
`
` the Declaration of Alan R. Owens (Exhibit 2010);
`
` the Declaration of Edward L. Massman (Exhibit 2011);
`
` the Declaration of Don James (Exhibit 2012);
`
` the Declaration of Greg Younger (Exhibit 2013);
`
` claim charts for priority evidence (Appendix C);
`
` R. Jan Gurley, M.D., et al., Persons Found in Their Homes Helpless or
`
`Dead, R. Jan Gurley, M.D., et al., New England Journal of Medicine, June
`
`27, 1996 (Exhibit 2015);
`
` “Fall Down” Project Definition and Goals, prepared by Don James July 14,
`
`1998 (Exhibit 2016);
`
` Notes from HWI Inventor Notebook, dated June 1, 1998 (Exhibit 2017);
`
` Fall Down Detection Project Timeline, dated July 27, 1998 (Exhibit 2018);
`
` PERS Fall Down Detection Method and System, by Don James and Alan
`
`Owens, dated August 31, 1998 (Exhibit 2019);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated July 8, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2020);
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 9
`
`

`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated July 15, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2021);
`
` Notes from HWI Inventor Notebook, dated July 27, 1998 (Exhibit 2022);
`
` Notes from HWI Inventor Notebook, dated August 4, 1998 (Exhibit 2023);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated August 5, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2024);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated August 19, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2025);
`
` Notes from HWI Inventor Notebook, dated August 19, 1998 (Exhibit 2026);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated August 20, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2027);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated August 26, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2028);
`
` Notes from Don James Inventor Notebook, dated August 27, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2029);
`
` HWI Drawing Number Assignment Log, dated July 17, 1998 to December
`
`7, 1998 (Exhibit 2030);
`
` HWI Drawing Number IAF0680R1, dated September 22, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2031);
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 10
`
`

`
` HWI Bill of Materials for IAF0680R1, dated September 23, 1998 (Exhibit
`
`2032);
`
` Photograph of PCB Board IAF683R2 (Exhibit 2033);
`
` Trip Report Azalea Gardens Oxford Miss., dated January 20, 1999 (Exhibit
`
`2034); and
`
` IPERS Evaluation Units for ADT, dated July 12, 1999 (Exhibit 2035).
`
`7.
`
`In addition, in reaching the conclusions stated in this declaration, I
`
`have considered my own knowledge and experience, including my work
`
`experience, my teaching experience, and my experience in working with others
`
`involved in the field of the iLife Patents.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE iLIFE PATENTS:
`
`8.
`
`The field of invention for the iLife Patents is generally systems for
`
`detecting and evaluating body movement, as well as inactivity, relative to an
`
`environment, with one goal being the identification of irregular body motions such
`
`as falls for purposes of signaling an alarm through use of a communication device.
`
`The iLife Patent describe evaluating “body” movement relative to an environment,
`
`where “body” refers to “both organic and inorganic objects” and therefore
`
`encompasses at least humans and articles. Exhibit 10012 at Abstract and 1:11-15.
`
`The primary illustrative embodiments in the iLife Patents relate to human fall
`
`2 Throughout this analysis, unless specifically noted otherwise, references to the description and
`drawings of the iLife Patents are to the ‘481 Patent, IPR2015-00105, Exhibit 1001.
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 11
`
`

`
`detection, such as detection of injurious or debilitating falls by the elderly. Exhibit
`
`1001 at 1:7-12. However, the iLife Patents explicitly apply to other types of body
`
`movement evaluation, such as movement of toddlers and freight containers,
`
`tactical movement by soldiers or police, etc. Exhibit 1001 at 8:64-67.
`
`9.
`
`A sensor system 11 having at least two perpendicularly-oriented
`
`accelerometers 25 is associated with the body for movement evaluation. Exhibit
`
`1001 at 4:1-36 and 4:61-65. The two accelerometers are oriented along the x axis
`
`27 and y axis 29 of a three dimensional (x, y, z) frame of reference:
`
`Exhibit 1001 at Fig. 1 and 4:62-65. The two accelerometers in the illustrative
`
`embodiment measure acceleration along the x and y axes, with the x axis oriented
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 12
`
`

`
`in a direction from front-to-back of a person, the y axis is oriented along a
`
`direction across the person’s shoulders, and the z axis is oriented along a direction
`
`of the person’s height.
`
`10. The plural axis sensor 25 is employed to sense both “static” and
`
`“dynamic” accelerations in each of the different directions. “Static” acceleration is
`
`based on the direct current (DC) outputs of the accelerometers and corresponds
`
`primarily to acceleration of the body due to gravity, while “dynamic” acceleration
`
`is based on the alternating current (AC) outputs of the accelerometers and
`
`corresponds to movement or vibration of the body. Exhibit 1001 at 5:34-46. The
`
`static and dynamic acceleration measurements are compared to criteria, including
`
`specified values, to determine whether the body movement corresponding to the
`
`sensed static and dynamic accelerations is within environmental tolerance. Exhibit
`
`1001 at 8:60-67.
`
`11. While static and dynamic acceleration are generally components of
`
`total acceleration, sensing and processing total acceleration differs from sensing
`
`and processing each of static and dynamic acceleration. Total acceleration
`
`measurements will combine static and dynamic acceleration if both are present, but
`
`will correspond to static acceleration only when no dynamic acceleration is present
`
`and to dynamic acceleration only when no static acceleration is present. As
`
`conceded by Dr. Welch, the Examiner of the ‘481 Patent immediately appreciated
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 13
`
`

`
`the difference between sensing and processing each of static and dynamic
`
`acceleration and sensing and processing total acceleration, allowing claims
`
`containing the “static and dynamic acceleration” limitation in a first Office Action
`
`over references not teaching sensing and/or processing such measures. Exhibit
`
`1002 at 16-17, ¶ 33 (quoting IPR2015-00105 Exhibit 1011 at 93).
`
`12. After sensing each of static and dynamic acceleration, the iLife
`
`Patents teach applying criteria including specified values for magnitude, direction,
`
`or both of the sensed static and dynamic accelerations to determine whether the
`
`body movement is within environmental tolerance. This determination, based on
`
`each of static and dynamic acceleration, differs from merely detecting a type of
`
`movement. This determination also necessarily entails sensing each of static and
`
`dynamic acceleration in each of at least two (e.g., x and y) perpendicular
`
`directions.
`
`13.
`
`In the illustrative human fall detection environment, for example,
`
`static and dynamic acceleration are both employed not only to recognize a fall, but
`
`also to determine whether that fall is tolerable to the body. The determination of
`
`tolerability for fall detection is based on sensing “the disruption of a stable
`
`position, or normal body movement, by a concussive force followed by a distinctly
`
`different ending stable position.” Exhibit 1001 at 7:19-21. The sensing of a
`
`“concussive” force – or, phrased differently, “an out-of-tolerance” movement
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 14
`
`

`
`corresponding to “a single sharp impact” (Exhibit 1001 at 7:55-57) – is one part of
`
`determining that the evaluated fall is not within environmental tolerance. This
`
`portion of the environmental tolerance determination is made based on sensed and
`
`processed dynamic acceleration. A sensed “disruption of a stable position[] or
`
`normal body movement” that is “followed by a distinctly different ending stable
`
`position” is another part of determining that the evaluated fall is not within
`
`environmental
`
`tolerance.
`
` This portion of
`
`the environmental
`
`tolerance
`
`determination is made based on sensed and processed static acceleration.
`
`14. Criteria, including specified values for magnitude, direction or both,
`
`are applied in processing both sensed static and dynamic accelerations to determine
`
`whether a fall is within environmental tolerance. The dynamic acceleration
`
`measurements (AC component of the accelerometer outputs) are monitored and
`
`compared against a specified value corresponding to threshold for tolerability of
`
`the body movement. In one example described in the iLife Patents, a switch is
`
`employed to set the tolerance (threshold) of magnitude for sensed dynamic
`
`acceleration to a value of at least 2 G (twice the value of acceleration due to earth’s
`
`gravity) and up to 4 G to identify concussive or sharp impacts associated with a
`
`possible fall that is not within environmental tolerance. Exhibit 1001 at 8:12-21.
`
`In the exemplary human fall detection embodiment of the iLife Patents, a specified
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 15
`
`

`
`value of 2 G (or greater) magnitude in dynamic acceleration is employed in
`
`determining whether the fall is within environmental tolerance.
`
`15.
`
`In the illustrative human fall detection environment, the dynamic
`
`acceleration is sensed in an x-y plane perpendicular to the direction of the person’s
`
`height (the z axis). As discussed above, the dual axis accelerometer of one
`
`embodiment is mounted in a housing worn on the person’s belt, with the x and y
`
`axes oriented in horizontal directions for a standing person and the z axis oriented
`
`vertically – that is, in the direction of the person’s height. Those skilled in the art
`
`will understand that a concussive force causing a person to fall or resulting from
`
`the falling person striking the ground will most likely be primarily within that x-y
`
`plane, which is initially horizontal for a standing person but rotates with the falling
`
`person to be vertical at the end of the fall. Two axes of a three-dimensional
`
`environment are thus sufficient to detect the dynamic acceleration of a concussive
`
`force associated with a fall.
`
`16. Static acceleration is separately processed using criteria including
`
`specified values for magnitude, direction or both to determine whether a fall is
`
`within environmental tolerance. As discussed above, static acceleration indicates
`
`body position based on earth’s gravity. Static acceleration is also sensed in an x-y
`
`plane perpendicular to the direction of the person’s height. When the monitored
`
`person is upright, little static acceleration will be sensed, allowing the system to
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 16
`
`

`
`infer that the orientation of earth’s gravity is substantially aligned with the z axis.
`
`Otherwise a 1 G acceleration would be sensed. When the person has fallen (i.e.,
`
`tipped over onto his or her side), static acceleration of about 1 G is sensed, in the x-
`
`y plane of the accelerometers. Due to the orientation of the sensors, a static
`
`acceleration of about 1 G indicates the person is face down, on one of his or her
`
`left and right sides, on his or her back, or some combination of those positions.
`
`Two axes of a three-dimensional environment are thus sufficient to detect the
`
`change in direction for static acceleration associated with a fall.
`
`17.
`
`In determining whether a fall is within environmental tolerance, the
`
`system 11 in the fall detection example of the iLife Patents accumulates static
`
`acceleration measurements (DC component of the accelerometer outputs) on a
`
`rolling basis to determine changes in the person’s “stable” position. Exhibit 1001
`
`at 7:60 to 8:6. The body position is only considered “stable” if the dynamic
`
`acceleration measurements are less than the concussive force magnitude threshold
`
`(2 G to 4 G). Exhibit 1001 at 8:22-25. In connection with a dynamic acceleration
`
`having a magnitude exceeding the concussive force or sharp impact threshold, the
`
`system 11 compares previously accumulated static acceleration measurements with
`
`current static acceleration measurements to determine any associated change in
`
`body position. A body position change associated with the detected concussive
`
`force is checked against either of two specified tolerance (threshold) values of
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 17
`
`

`
`static acceleration direction change: a change of 45° or more before and after the
`
`concussive or sharp impact, or a change of 90°±25% just prior to the concussive or
`
`sharp impact.
`
` Exhibit 1001 at 8:31-49.
`
` Optionally, static acceleration
`
`measurements subsequent to concussive force or sharp impact may be monitored
`
`for a change in body orientation indicating that the person was able to rise from the
`
`potential fall. Exhibit 1001 at 8:35-38.
`
`18. The iLife Patents thus teach using specified values of magnitude,
`
`direction or both for each of static and dynamic acceleration, sensed using each of
`
`at least two perpendicular accelerometers, to determine whether a fall is within
`
`environmental tolerance. The iLife Patents also provide guidance on how the
`
`criteria were developed. That is, for fall detection, the iLife Patents indicate a
`
`selectable tolerance of at least 2 G and up to about 4 G as the threshold of dynamic
`
`acceleration magnitude for identifying an out-of-tolerance concussive force or
`
`sharp impact, accompanied by a tolerance of at least 45° as the threshold of change
`
`in static acceleration threshold for confirming the out-of-tolerance fall and
`
`distinguishing events with similar dynamic acceleration magnitudes. Many other
`
`environments can also exploit threshold values of dynamic acceleration magnitude
`
`and threshold values in associated change of static acceleration direction to
`
`determine whether movement is within tolerance for the environment of interest,
`
`including the examples identified in the iLife Patents of monitoring freight or
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 18
`
`

`
`tactical maneuvering. The iLife Patents teach that combinations of magnitude and
`
`direction may be employed as criteria for sensed dynamic acceleration, that
`
`combinations of magnitude and direction may be employed for sensed static
`
`acceleration, and that combinations of magnitude and direction may be employed
`
`as criteria for both sensed dynamic acceleration and sensed static acceleration.
`
`With such guidance, those skilled in the art can select from among permutations of
`
`possible magnitude, direction, or both for each of static acceleration and dynamic
`
`acceleration to determine tolerability of body movement for an environment of
`
`interest. Those skilled in the relevant art will be able to apply the teachings of the
`
`iLife Patents to determine criteria for other environments in a predictable manner.
`
`Based on the guidance provided in the iLife Patents on determining suitable
`
`criteria for magnitude, direction or both of sensed static and dynamic acceleration,
`
`those skilled in the art could readily apply the teachings of the iLife Patents to
`
`determining tolerance of body movement for other environments.
`
`19. For the illustrative human fall detection environment of the iLife
`
`Patents, determining tolerability of a fall inherently involves simply detecting the
`
`fall. The iLife Patents teach that sensed static and dynamic acceleration along each
`
`of x and y axes may be processed for mere detection of a movement type such as a
`
`fall (or, equivalently, a box tipping over):
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 19
`
`

`
`Of course, the same x and y outputs of the sensor 25 may be suitably
`
`processed to simply determine position of the body, for instance, such
`
`as when a person is lying down, when a box has tipped over, etc.
`
`Exhibit 1001 at 7:26-30. As those skilled in the art will understand from the
`
`teachings of the iLife Patents, a body position change equal or in excess of 45° in
`
`connection with an impact force of less than 2 G is likely to indicate a fall, but not
`
`an intolerable fall. Mere fall detection may alternatively involve detecting a
`
`change of about 90° in body position, possibly coupled with the body remaining in
`
`the changed position for at least a threshold period of time. The tolerability of
`
`body movement is determined in the exemplary human fall detection embodiment
`
`using similar criteria as merely detecting a type of body movement, but is
`
`determined in addition to detecting the type of body movement (the fall).
`
`20.
`
` There are many environments which would affect the readings from
`
`a sensor that need to be considered for human fall detection, especially with
`
`respect to tolerance indicia (e.g., an elderly person in a nursing home, a soldier on
`
`a battlefield, a worker on a telephone pole, a container of combustible gas, a
`
`toddler, etc.). The iLife Patents could not have exhaustively identified criteria for
`
`all possible environments. However, each of these different environments would
`
`have some effect on the results of static and dynamic acceleration measurements
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 20
`
`

`
`that need to be accommodated. The iLife Patents disclose and claim exactly that,
`
`whereas Unuma and Yasushi do not.
`
`21. As discussed in further detail below, the claims of the iLife Patents
`
`define a system distinct from the systems disclosed in the references cited in the
`
`Petitions and Institution Decisions and from the description in Welch Declarations.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION:
`
`22.
`
`I understand that interpretation of the claims is a necessary first step in
`
`any validity analysis. I also understand that claims are interpreted from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill Relating to the iLife Patents
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the interpretation of the claims in the iLife Patents,
`
`and the determination of obviousness of those claims, is performed from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art of the iLife Patents
`
`at the time of the invention. For purposes of this analysis, I will use the one-year
`
`period leading up to September 15, 1999, the filing date of the first non-provisional
`
`patent application in the iLife Patent family, as the time of the invention.
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention include Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 21
`
`

`
`either Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering and three years of
`
`experience in object motion measurement and analysis.
`
`Manner of Interpretation
`
`25. There appears to be no dispute that claims are given the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which the
`
`respective claims appear (IPR2015-00105, Paper 1 at 4-5; IPR2015-00105, Paper 9
`
`at 12; IPR2015-00105, Paper 12 at 7). There also appears to be no dispute that the
`
`usage of claim terms in the specification is considered as part of determining what
`
`constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation that may be accorded the
`
`respective claim terms (IPR2015-00105, Paper 1 at 4-5; IPR2015-00105, Paper 9
`
`at 12-13; IPR2015-00105, Paper 12 at 7).
`
`Adopted Express Definitions and Preliminary Claim Constructions
`
`26. The iLife Patents include express definitions of certain claim terms:
`
`Claim Limitation
`“sensor”
`
`Express Definition
`a device that senses one or more
`absolute values, changes in value,
`or some combination of the same,
`of at least the sensed accelerative
`phenomena (Ex. 1001 at 2:23-31)
`
`Patents/Claims
`‘481 Patent: 1, 11-13,
`15-16, and 20-21
`‘939 Patent: 1 and 21
`‘796 Patent: 1 and 10
`‘331 Patent: 1 and 11
`‘461 Patent: 1, 18, 21,
`38, 41, and 61-62
`‘890 Patent: 1 and 11
`
`IPR2015-00105, Nintendo of America, Inc. v.
`iLife Technologies, Inc.
`
`iLife Ex. 2006, p. 22
`
`

`
`Claim Limitation
`“body”
`
`“accelerative
`event” or
`“accelerative
`phenomena”
`
`“processor” or
`“controller”
`
`Express Definition
`any organic or inorganic object
`whose movement or position may
`suitably be evaluated relative its
`environment in accordance with the
`principles hereof (Ex. 1001 at 2:3-
`6)
`
`occurrences of change in velocity
`of the body (or acceleration),
`whether in magnitude, direction or
`both, and including cessation of
`activity or inactivity (Ex. 1001 at
`4:36-40)
`
`any device, system or part thereof
`that controls at least one operation,
`such a device may be implemented
`in hardware, firmware or software,
`or some suitable combination of at
`least two of the same (Ex. 1001 at
`3:53-57)
`
`Patents/Claims
`‘481 Patent: 1, 10-11,
`13, and 20-22
`‘939 Patent: 1-2 and
`21-23
`‘796 Patent: 1, 10, and
`19-20
`‘331 Patent: 1-2 and
`11-12
`‘461 Patent: 1-4, 7,
`18, 21-38, 41, and
`6