Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`2015-1788
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BODYMEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`Appellant,
`
`
`v.
`
`BASIS SCIENCE, INC.,
`
`
`Appellee.
`____________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`in Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/002,376, Appeal No. 2014-008959
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`CORRECTED APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Clay Holloway
`Michael S. Pavento
`Renae B. Wainwright
`Robert J. Curylo
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`(404) 815-6500
`(404) 815-6555
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mpavento@kilpatricktownsend.com
`rwainwright@kilpatricktownsend.com
`rcurylo@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`
`October 8, 2015
`
`
`
`1 of 56
`
`FITBIT EXHIBIT 1015
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for BodyMedia, Inc. certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party represented by us is:
`
`BodyMedia, Inc.
`
`2.
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`the real party in interest) represented by us is:
`
`Same.
`
`3.
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party represented by us are:
`
`BodyMedia, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of AliphCom, Inc.
`d/b/a Jawbone. AliphCom has no corporate parent, and no publicly
`held corporation owns 10% or more of AliphCom’s stock.
`
`4.
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to
`appear in this court are:
`
`D. Clay Holloway, Michael S. Pavento, Renae B. Wainwright, Robert
`J. Curylo – Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`Jeffrey R. Ambroziak – GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`s/D. Clay Holloway
`D. Clay Holloway
`
`i
`
`2 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Explanation
`
`Decision
`
`March 27, 2015 decision of Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`BodyMedia or Patent
`Owner
`
`BodyMedia, Inc.
`
`PTAB
`
`Amano
`
`Myllymaki
`
`USPTO
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,030,342
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,670,944
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`the ’707 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707
`
`the ’049 application
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/247,049
`
`the Office Action
`
`Office Action issued November 13, 2012
`
`ACP
`
`Action Closing Prosecution issued May 3, 2013
`
`the requester
`
`Basis Science, Inc.
`
`RAN
`
`Right of Appeal Notice issued September 24, 2013
`
`the Respondent Brief Respondent Brief filed by the requester on January 23,
`2014
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Background of the Patented Technology ........................................................ 6
`
`Prosecution History and Issued Claims ........................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding before USPTO ............................... 12
`
`IV. The PTAB’s Decision .................................................................................... 13
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 15
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 17
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Standard of Review ........................................................................................ 17
`
`The PTAB Erred In Finding Claims 1-18, 20-22, and 25-43
`Unpatentable. ................................................................................................. 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The PTAB Erred in Concluding that Amano Anticipates
`Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 14-18, and 22. ........................................................ 18
`
`The PTAB Erred in Concluding that Claims 25 and 37 Are
`Obvious in View of Amano and Myllymaki. ...................................... 28
`
`III. The PTAB Erred in Relying on a New Ground of Rejection
`Without Granting the Patent Owner an Opportunity to Reopen
`Prosecution When Affirming the Rejections of Claims 1-18, 20-22,
`and 25-43. ....................................................................................................... 39
`
`iii
`
`4 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 47
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 48
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`5 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AliphCom et al. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`No. 3:2015-cv-02579-HSG (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................. 1
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 18
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 21
`BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-00133-GMS (D. Del.) ........................................................................ 1
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 22
`In re Biedermann,
`733 F.3d 329 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 40, 46
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Karpf,
`576 Fed. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 19
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Leithem,
`661 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 41, 42, 46
`In re Mettke,
`570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 18
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 31, 32, 33, 34
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 21, 22, 27
`Rapoport v. Dement,
`254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 17
`
`v
`
`6 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. TEK Global, S.R.L.,
`-- F.R.D. --, 2015 WL 3622097 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 11, 2015) ................................... 19
`
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) ................................................................................................ 40
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) ......................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 18
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 6 (b) ...................................................................................................... 40
`5 U.S.C. § 554(b)(3) ................................................................................................. 40
`
`
`vi
`
`7 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 8 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No other appeal from this inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,073,707 was previously before this or any other appellate court. Another case
`
`between the same parties involving U.S. Patent No. 7,689,437 was the subject of a
`
`separate inter partes reexamination and is currently on appeal to this Court in No.
`
`2015-1786.
`
`BodyMedia, Inc., on February 2, 2012, brought an infringement suit against
`
`Basis Science, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
`
`based in part on claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, and 22 of the patent-at-issue in
`
`this appeal. BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00133-GMS (D.
`
`Del.). Pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal by both parties, on January 29,
`
`2015, the district court dismissed this action without prejudice.
`
`BodyMedia, Inc. and AliphCom, Inc. (d/b/a Jawbone), on June 10, 2015,
`
`brought an infringement suit against Fitbit, Inc. in the United States District Court
`
`for the Northern District of California, based in part on the patent-at-issue in this
`
`appeal. AliphCom et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:2015-cv-02579-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
`
`
`
`1
`
`8 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 9 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This appeal arises from the March 27, 2015 decision (“Decision”) of the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes reexamination No.
`
`95/002,376. A1-A13. BodyMedia, Inc. (“BodyMedia” or “Patent Owner”) filed
`
`its notice of appeal within the time required by 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1). This Court
`
`has exclusive jurisdiction over BodyMedia’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 319.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether the PTAB erred in holding that claims 1-4, 7, 11, 14-18, and 22 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707 (“the ’707 patent”) were anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,030,342 to Amano et al. (“Amano”) when the PTAB ignored the claim
`
`requirements for the use of specific, claimed data parameters.
`
`2. Whether the PTAB erred in determining that claims 25 and 37 of the ’707
`
`patent were obvious over Amano in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,670,944 to
`
`Myllymaki (“Myllymaki”) where:
`
`(a) the PTAB ignored the requirements of claim 25 for the use of specific,
`
`claimed data parameters in the recitation of “present[ing] to a user indicators
`
`of at least one of said derived parameters . . . in relation to indicators of at
`
`least one of (i) said data indicative of said first physiological parameter of
`
`the individual, (ii) said data indicative of said second physiological
`
`
`
`2
`
`9 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 10 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`parameter of the individual, and (iii) said data indicative of third
`
`physiological parameter of the individual”;
`
`(b) the combination of Amano and Myllymaki does not disclose or suggest
`
`calculating calories burned using data generated by a skin conductance
`
`sensor; and
`
`(c) the PTAB failed to cite any evidence for this core factual finding.
`
`3. Whether the PTAB erred in relying on a new ground of rejection without
`
`granting the Patent Owner an opportunity to reopen prosecution when affirming the
`
`rejections of claims 1-18, 20-22, and 25-43.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`BodyMedia appeals the PTAB’s determination that claims 1-18, 20-22, and
`
`25-43 of the ’707 patent are unpatentable. A3. BodyMedia has been a leader in
`
`the medical and consumer electronic technology development field since 1999 and
`
`has developed multi-sensor technologies adapted for a variety of uses and markets.
`
`BodyMedia’s research and development efforts have resulted in the grant of
`
`numerous patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`covering various physiological monitoring and reporting technologies and the use
`
`of such technologies in medical and consumer applications.
`
`The ’707 patent discloses and claims a wearable physiological monitoring
`
`device. A32 (1:15-16). The wearable device measures physiological parameters
`
`
`
`3
`
`10 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 11 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`of an individual wearing the wearable device. A33 (4:34-42). Examples of
`
`physiological data generated by the device include heart rate data, body
`
`temperature data, and motion data. A34 (5:1-38). The wearable device uses at
`
`least a portion of the measured physiological data to generate data about derived
`
`parameters indicative of a state of the individual. A32 (2:19-25), A33 (3:11-46).
`
`Examples of derived parameters include the individual’s caloric expenditure, stress
`
`level, activity level, or sleep quality. A33 (3:33-38), A34 (6:51-65).
`
`The main prior art reference at issue is Amano. Amano is listed on the face
`
`of the ’707 patent and thus was known to the USPTO during original prosecution
`
`when the USPTO found the claims of the ’707 patent to be patentable. A18.
`
`Amano discloses a calorie expenditure measuring device. A708 (6:53-56). Instead
`
`of presenting a derived parameter (e.g., caloric expenditure data) in relation to a set
`
`of physiological data (e.g., body temperature data) that was used to generate the
`
`caloric expenditure data, Amano’s system displays caloric expenditure data and
`
`can separately display a set of body temperature data that is unrelated to the
`
`displayed caloric expenditure data. See A714 (18:6-45), A715 (19:22-33), A717
`
`(24:4-14). As the USPTO found during original prosecution, the claims of the
`
`’707 patent are patentable over Amano.
`
`In the current proceeding, however, the PTAB failed to properly apply the
`
`express words of the claim to the prior art and thus the record lacks substantial
`
`
`
`4
`
`11 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 12 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`evidence to support the findings of invalidity. In particular, the PTAB read claim 1
`
`to only require that data indicative of a derived parameter (e.g., caloric
`
`expenditure) be presented in relation to any data indicative of a physiological
`
`parameter such as body temperature. This interpretation ignores the requirement
`
`that indicators of the derived parameter (e.g., caloric expenditure) must be
`
`presented in relation to indicators of physiological data (e.g., body temperature)
`
`that was used to generate the derived parameter. Relying on its flawed read, the
`
`PTAB incorrectly found the ’707 patent claims anticipated by Amano or obvious
`
`over Amano in view of other references when no substantial evidence exists for
`
`such a finding. A5-A7.
`
`The other prior art reference at issue, Myllymaki, is also listed on the face of
`
`the ’707 patent and thus was known to the USPTO during original prosecution
`
`when the USPTO found the claims of the ’707 patent to be patentable. A18.
`
`Myllymaki describes a system that monitors a physical condition or performance
`
`condition using various sensors including a skin conductivity transducer. A729
`
`(2:45-57). Even though Myllymaki does not describe that the skin conductivity
`
`transducer can be used to calculate caloric expenditure, the PTAB incorrectly
`
`found that the teaching of this skin conductivity transducer, when combined with
`
`Amano’s device for determining caloric expenditure, teaches the claimed
`
`invention. See A7-A11. Yet, the PTAB failed to cite any evidence of record that a
`
`
`
`5
`
`12 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 13 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the combination as
`
`disclosing such an arrangement. See id.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`I.
`
`Background of the Patented Technology
`
`The ’707 patent describes systems and methods for monitoring health,
`
`wellness, and fitness. A32 (1:15-16). For example, the ’707 patent describes a
`
`sensor device that generates data indicative of one or more physiological
`
`parameters of an individual such as heart rate, pulse rate, skin temperature, or
`
`motion, among others. A33 (4:48-55). The sensor device then generates data
`
`about derived parameters such as caloric expenditure, stress level, sleep quality,
`
`etc. from these physiological parameters. A32 (2:19-25), A33 (3:33-38), A34
`
`(6:51-65).
`
`The system described by the ’707 patent provides an individual with a
`
`unique tool to monitor his or her progress toward achieving a healthier lifestyle.
`
`For example, the system can provide an individual with feedback about the
`
`individual’s lifestyle, particularly feedback on parameters such as stress level,
`
`activity level, and sleep quality that are derived from (and therefore related to) the
`
`measured physiological parameters, such as heart rate, body temperature, and
`
`motion. A33 (3:33-36), A34 (6:51-65). Displaying this related data to an
`
`
`
`6
`
`13 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 14 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`individual allows the individual to identify how he or she can implement changes
`
`to obtain a desired health indicator. See A40 (18:11-46).
`
`Table 2 of the ’707 patent, reproduced below, provides examples of the type
`
`of information (i.e., parameters) that can be derived and the physiological
`
`parameters that can be used to derive the additional information. A34 (6:47-65),
`
`A35 (7:1-16).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`14 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 15 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`The system claimed in the ’707 patent can also provide feedback to an
`
`individual regarding his or her performance and the degree to which he or she has
`
`succeeded in reaching a healthy daily routine. A39 (15:1-5). Examples of such
`
`feedback include feedback for categories such as Activity Level, Mind Centering,
`
`and Sleep. A39 (15:5-10). The Activity Level category relates to how much a
`
`person moves around. A39 (15:12-13). The Mind Centering category relates to
`
`the quality and quantity of time a person spends engaging in some activity that
`
`allows the body to achieve a state of profound relaxation while the mind becomes
`
`highly alert and focused. A39 (15:13-16). The Sleep category relates to the
`
`quality and quantity of a person’s sleep. A39 (15:17-18).
`
`The system claimed in the ’707 patent also includes a central monitoring
`
`unit that visually displays the data indicative of one or more physiological
`
`parameters (such as heart rate, pulse rate, skin temperature, etc.) and data about
`
`one or more derived parameters (such as sleep quality, stress level, caloric
`
`expenditure, etc.). A32 (2:25-27, 43-46), A34 (6 :51-65), A35 (8:50-55), A38
`
`(14:33-67). This data can be displayed in the form of a web page. One example of
`
`a generated web page is a sleep web page (numeral 290 in Figure 9 reproduced
`
`below) that depicts information regarding a user’s sleep. A29 (Fig. 9), A40
`
`(18:20-25).
`
`
`
`8
`
`15 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 16 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`
`The sleep web page is designed to convey information about the quality and
`
`quantity of a person’s sleep (i.e., indicators of a derived parameter) in relation to
`
`data about heat flow from the individual’s skin (i.e., indicators of physiological
`
`data) that is used to generate sleep-related information. A40 (18:20-36).
`
`II.
`
`Prosecution History and Issued Claims
`
`The ’707 patent issued on December 6, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 11/247,049 (“the ’049 application”). A17. The ’049 application was filed on
`
`October 11, 2005 and claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/595,660,
`
`which was filed on June 16, 2000. Id. Numerous prior art references were before
`
`the Examiner during prosecution, including the Amano and Myllymaki references.
`
`After one office action and various amendments to the claims, the ’707 patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`16 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 17 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`issued.
`
`Claim 1 is directed to monitoring and controlling an individual’s status
`
`toward a physiological goal. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A system for detecting, monitoring, and reporting a status of an
`individual to a user, the system comprising:
`
`a first sensor adapted to generate data indicative of a first
`physiological parameter of the individual if said first sensor is in
`proximity to the individual;
`
`a second sensor adapted to generate data indicative of a second
`physiological parameter of the individual if said second sensor is in
`proximity to the individual . . .
`
`A42 (21:2-10). Examples of the claimed first and second physiological parameters
`
`recited in claim 1 include an individual’s heart rate, pulse rate, and skin
`
`temperature, among others. A33 (4:48-55).
`
`Claim 1 further recites (with claim elements relevant to this appeal
`
`emphasized):
`
`a processing unit in electronic communication with said first
`sensor and said second sensor;
`
`a central monitoring unit in electronic communication with at
`least one of said sensors and said processing unit; and
`
`an output device in electronic communication with at least one
`of said processing unit and said central monitoring unit, wherein at
`least one of said processing unit and said central monitoring unit is
`programmed
`
`(a) to generate at least one of a derived physiological
`status parameter of the individual and a derived parameter
`related to an activity in which the individual has engaged, said
`
`
`
`10
`
`17 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 18 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`derived parameters based on both of said data indicative of
`said first physiological parameter of the individual and said
`data indicative of said second physiological parameter of the
`individual, and . . .
`
`A42 (21:11-24) (emphasis added). Examples of the claimed “derived parameters”
`
`include sleep-related information, number of calories burned, and stress level,
`
`among others. A33 (3:33-38), A34 (6:47-65). Thus, claim 1 specifies that
`
`information about a user such as sleep-related information, caloric expenditure,
`
`and stress level is generated from physiological data such as heart rate data, pulse
`
`rate data, and skin temperature data.
`
`Claim 1 further recites (with claim elements relevant to this appeal
`
`emphasized):
`
`(b) to cause said output device to present to a user
`indicators of at least one of said derived parameters of the
`individual in relation to indicators of at least one of (i) said
`data indicative of said first physiological parameter of the
`individual, and (ii) said data indicative of said second
`physiological parameter of the individual.
`
`A42 (21:26-31) (emphasis added).
`
`For example, the sleep web page depicted in Figure 9 of the ’707 patent
`
`displays information about a quality of an individual’s sleep (i.e., an indicator of a
`
`derived parameter) along with data about heat flow from the individual’s skin (i.e.,
`
`an indicator of a physiological parameter). A40 (18:20-40). Of critical
`
`importance, the displayed heat flow data is the data used to generate the sleep-
`
`
`
`11
`
`18 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 19 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`related information. See A40 (18:20-36). Thus, the invention recited in claim 1
`
`presents information about a derived parameter (e.g., sleep quality, caloric
`
`expenditure, etc.) in relation to the physiological data (e.g., heat flow, heart rate,
`
`etc.) that was used to generate the derived parameter. The two types of data
`
`surrounding the “in relation to” claim language are specific and limited.
`
`III.
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding before USPTO
`
`The third-party requester, Basis Science, Inc. (“the requester”), filed a
`
`Petition requesting inter partes reexamination of claims 1-18 and 20-22 of the ’707
`
`patent on September 14, 2012. A47. The USPTO instituted the inter partes
`
`reexamination of claims 1-18 and 20-22 of the ’707 patent and issued an Office
`
`Action on November 13, 2012 (“the Office Action”). A244, A267. Among other
`
`rejections, the Office Action rejected claim 1 as allegedly anticipated by Amano.
`
`A269-A272.
`
`In response to the Office Action, Patent Owner filed a response traversing
`
`the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20-22 and an amendment paper adding claims 25-
`
`43. A320-A340. The USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution on May 3,
`
`2013 (“the ACP”) maintaining the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20-22 and
`
`rejecting newly added claims 25-43. A419. Among other rejections, the ACP
`
`rejected claims 25 and 37 as allegedly obvious over Amano in view of Myllymaki.
`
`A441-A445, A453-A458.
`
`
`
`12
`
`19 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 20 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`IV. The PTAB’s Decision
`
`In its Decision of March 27, 2015, the PTAB determined that Amano
`
`anticipated independent claim 1 and that Amano in combination with Myllymaki
`
`rendered obvious independent claim 25. A7, A11. In doing so, the PTAB found
`
`that claims 1 and 25 only require that indicators of a derived parameter (e.g., sleep
`
`information, calories burned, stress level, etc.) are presented in relation to
`
`indicators of data indicative of a physiological parameter (e.g., data about an
`
`individual’s heart rate, pulse rate, skin temperature, etc.), regardless of whether the
`
`data indicative of the physiological parameters was used to generate the derived
`
`parameter. See A6.
`
`In particular, the PTAB cited a first Amano embodiment that displays
`
`calorie expenditure over a first time period as teaching the claimed presentation of
`
`a derived parameter. A6 (citing Amano Figure 19). The PTAB also cited a second
`
`Amano embodiment that displays body temperature over a second time period as
`
`teaching the claimed presentation of a physiological parameter. A6 (citing Amano
`
`Figure 37). The PTAB found that Amano’s “derived parameter” (i.e., caloric
`
`expenditure data) and “physiological data” (i.e., body temperature) are presented in
`
`relation to one another merely because both of these data sets are displayed over
`
`time (A6-A7), even though the Examiner never relied on this rationale in rejecting
`
`the claims. See A272, A425, A444, A458, A534, A553, A567, A574, A787.
`
`
`
`13
`
`20 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 21 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`In effect, the PTAB misinterpreted the claims to only require the
`
`presentation of data indicative of a derived parameter in relation to any data
`
`indicative of a physiological parameter, not necessarily the data used to generate
`
`the derived parameter as required by the language of the claims. This
`
`misinterpretation omits the requirement that indicators of a derived parameter must
`
`be presented in relation to indicators of physiological parameter data that was used
`
`to generate the derived parameter. Therefore, the PTAB’s findings rely on an
`
`erroneous reading of claims 1 and 25.
`
`No embodiment of Amano cited by the PTAB teaches presenting indicators
`
`of a derived parameter in relation to indicators of physiological parameter data that
`
`was used to generate the derived parameter, as required by claims 1 and 25.
`
`Compare A5-A8 (citing Amano Figures 19 and 37) with A715 (19:22-23) and
`
`A717 (24:4-14) (describing embodiments depicted in Amano Figures 19 and 37).
`
`More specifically, Amano does not teach presenting indicators of caloric data (i.e.,
`
`the alleged “derived parameter”) in relation to temperature data (i.e., the alleged
`
`“physiological parameter”) that was used to generate the caloric data, as claimed.
`
`See A715 (19:22-23) and A717 (24:4-14). Therefore, the PTAB erred by affirming
`
`the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Amano and affirming the rejection of
`
`claim 25 as obvious over the combination of Amano and Myllymaki.
`
`
`
`14
`
`21 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 22 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`Moreover, when concluding that claims 25 and 37 are obvious over Amano
`
`in view of Myllymaki, the PTAB failed to establish prima facie obviousness. The
`
`PTAB found that Myllymaki teaches using a galvanic skin response sensor for “a
`
`more accurate determination of whether a user is at rest or active,” and that
`
`Myllymaki’s use of the galvanic skin response sensor for this purpose constitutes
`
`an improvement to Amano. A9-A10. However, the PTAB failed to cite any
`
`evidence that using skin resistance data to determine caloric expenditure data was
`
`known in the art. See A9-A11. Instead, the PTAB adopted unsupported assertions
`
`by the Examiner and the requester that Myllymaki teaches using skin resistance
`
`data to determine motion. A9-A10.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The rejections of all claims should be reversed because the PTAB
`
`overlooked the mandates of this Court with respect to claim interpretation in an
`
`anticipation analysis and evidentiary requirements for establishing prima facie
`
`obviousness.
`
`First, when affirming the rejections of independent claims 1 and 25 and their
`
`dependent claims, the PTAB relied on an erroneous reading of these claims.
`
`Specifically, the PTAB read the “present[ing] . . . indicators of at least one of said
`
`derived parameters of the individual in relation to indicators of . . . said data
`
`indicative of said . . . physiological parameter of the individual” limitation such
`
`
`
`15
`
`22 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 23 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`that the term “said” in the phrase “said data” of a physiological parameter was
`
`ignored. The PTAB then relied on this erroneous reading when applying this claim
`
`limitation to Amano, which lacks the feature of a derived parameter being
`
`presented in relation to physiological parameter data that was used to generate
`
`that derived parameter. In ignoring this distinguishing feature of independent
`
`claims 1 and 25, the PTAB affirmed the rejections despite the lack of substantial
`
`evidence that Amano teaches the “present . . . in relation to” features of these
`
`claims. Furthermore, because the PTAB’s errors with respect to independent
`
`claims 1 and 25 also apply to dependent claims 2-18, 20-22, and 26-36 (each of
`
`which depends from one of claims 1 and 25), these claims are neither anticipated
`
`by Amano nor obvious over Amano in combination with any other reference
`
`because of their dependence from claims 1 or 25.
`
`Second, when affirming the rejections of independent claims 25 and 37, the
`
`PTAB ignored this Court’s mandate that a finding of obviousness requires record
`
`evidence showing that each claimed feature was known in the prior art.
`
`Specifically, the PTAB adopted the erroneous and unsupported finding that using
`
`skin resistance data to determine an individual’s movement was known in the prior
`
`art, although no evidence of record supports this finding. The PTAB erred in
`
`relying on this unsupported finding in affirming the rejections of claims 25 and 37.
`
`Furthermore, because the PTAB’s errors with respect to independent claims 25 and
`
`
`
`16
`
`23 of 56
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1788 Document: 23 Page: 24 Filed: 10/08/2015
`
`
`
`37 also apply to dependent claims 26-36 (which depend from claim 25) and claims
`
`38-43 (which depend from claim 37), these claims are not obvious over Amano
`
`and Myllymaki (alone or in combination with any other reference) because of their
`
`dependence from claims 25 or 37.
`
`Third, when affirming the rejections of independent claims 1, 25, and 37, the
`
`PTAB improperly relied on new factual findings about Amano, but failed to
`
`designate these new factual findings as new grounds of rejection. Specifically, the
`
`PTAB’s affirmance of these rejections was predicated on a finding that the
`
`Examiner never made, i.e., that a first Amano embodiment displays calorie
`
`expenditure with respect to time, a second Amano embodiment displays body