Paper No. ____
`Filed: March 2, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: Fitbit, Inc.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Michael C. Hendershot (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`David T. Okano (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BODYMEDIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,398,546
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`Page
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 2 
`III. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................ 4 
`IV.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 4 
`A. 
`The ’546 Patent .................................................................................... 5 
`EFFECTIVE PRIORITY DATE OF CLAIMS OF THE ’546
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 7 
`A.  New Matter Added to the ’546 Patent .................................................. 8 
`B. 
`The June 2000 Applications Do Not Disclose Multiple
`Limitations of Claim 1 of the ’546 Patent ............................................ 8 
`VI.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF
`CHALLENGE .............................................................................................. 14 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15 
`A. 
`“contextual data of the individual” .................................................... 17 
`VIII.  CLAIMS 1–29 OF THE ’546 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............. 17 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1–29 Are Obvious Over Mault 089 in View
`of Mault 470 ....................................................................................... 17 
`Overview of Mault 089 ............................................................ 17 
`1. 
`Overview of Mault 470 ............................................................ 19 
`2. 
`Overview of the Combination of Mault 089 and Mault
`3. 
`470 ............................................................................................ 21 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 24 
`4. 
`Claims 2–4 ............................................................................... 37 
`5. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 39 
`6. 
`Claims 6 and 7 .......................................................................... 40 
`7. 
`Claims 8 and 9 .......................................................................... 44 
`8. 
`Claims 10–13 ........................................................................... 46 
`9. 
`10.  Claims 14–17 ........................................................................... 48 
`11.  Claims 18–21 ........................................................................... 52 
`12.  Claims 22–23 ........................................................................... 54 
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`13.  Claim 24 ................................................................................... 56 
`14.  Claim 25 ................................................................................... 56 
`15.  Claims 26 and 27...................................................................... 57 
`16.  Claims 28 and 29...................................................................... 59 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`No: 3:15-cv-02579 (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................. 2
`
`Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (ITC) .................................................................................. 3
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. BodyMedia, Inc.,
`Nos. IPR2016-00543 and IPR2016-00545 ........................................................... 3
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
`823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 17
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) ........................................................................................................... 7, 15
`§ 103 ................................................................................................................ 2, 15
`§ 112 .............................................................................................................passim
`§ 120 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8 ..................................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.15 ................................................................................................................... 4
`§ 42.103 ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Patent Office Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546 to Pacione et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark A. Musen
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Application No. 10/940,214
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0049470 to Mault et al.
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 01/39089 to Mault
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,689,437 to Teller et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,605,038 to Teller et al.
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Application No. 09/595,660
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Application No. 09/602,537
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Application No. 10/638,588
`
`Comparison of the specification of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546 to the
`specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,605,038
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof,
`ITC Inv. 337-TA-963, Markman Order (Feb. 17, 2016)
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`C.V. of Dr. Mark A. Musen
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fitbit, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1–29 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,398,546 (“the ’546 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to
`
`BodyMedia, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). The ’546 patent broadly claims known features
`
`of a weight control system that can be used as part of a “behavioral modification
`
`program for calorie control, weight control or general fitness.” Ex. 1001 at 1:24–
`
`26. The system includes a wearable device with sensors for detecting physiological
`
`and certain other data related to the individual. Id. at 5:22–6:16. The system
`
`prompts the individual to establish a weight loss goal, see id. at 23:9–14, generates
`
`a first suggestion to engage in an activity to assist the individual in achieving that
`
`weight loss goal, see id. at 23:40–60, determines the individual’s weight loss, see
`
`id. at 25:36–58, 26:4–14, and generates a second suggestion to engage in an
`
`activity based on whether the individual complied with the first suggestion, see id.
`
`at 35:15–36:22. This determination is made based on both the physiological and
`
`other data detected by the wearable device. See id. at 35:56–59, 37:40–44.
`
`Although the claims recite certain additional features, such as the ability to
`
`derive an “energy balance” from caloric intake and expenditure (claims 2–5, 26–
`
`27), identify and adapt patterns of behavior (claims 6–17), generate output based
`
`on these patterns (claims 18–21), and to provide an initial assessment for a weight
`
`loss plan (claims 22–25 and 28), all these features were well known in the art.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`As explained in the ’546 patent, “many medical and other commercial
`
`methodologies ha[d] been developed to assist individuals in losing excess body
`
`weight and maintaining an appropriate weight level through various diet, exercise,
`
`and behavioral modification techniques” before the earliest priority date of the
`
`’546 patent. Id. at 2:1–5. See id. at 2:1–4:11 (identifying prior art programs such as
`
`Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, BalanceLog, and FitDay). As established below,
`
`the claims of the ’546 patent merely recite some of these known weight-loss
`
`program methodologies using a generic computer system and the Internet.
`
`This petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus a trial should
`
`be instituted. This petition also establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`claims 1–29 of the ’546 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Accordingly, a trial should be instituted and these claims should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Fitbit, Inc., as the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the
`
`following related matters. The ’546 patent and two patents in same family as the
`
`’546 patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707 (“the ’707 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,961,413 (“the ’413 patent”), are involved in AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`BodyMedia, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No: 3:15-cv-02579 (N.D. Cal.), and Certain
`
`Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`963 (ITC). In addition, the ’707 patent and two patents to which the ’546 patent
`
`claims priority—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,689,437 (“the ’437 patent”) (Ex. 1006) and
`
`6,605,038 (“the ’038 patent”) (Ex. 1007)—are currently involved in the pending
`
`inter partes reexaminations Basis Sci., Inc. v. BodyMedia, Inc., Control Nos.
`
`95/002,376, 95/002,371, and 95/002,354. The challenged claims of those three
`
`patents currently stand rejected by the Board. Appeals of the Board’s decisions as
`
`to the claims of the ’707 and ’437 patents are currently pending before the U.S.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), Nos. 2015-1788 and
`
`2015-1786 (Fed. Cir.). Petitioner recently filed petitions for inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1–12 of the ’413 patent and 1–24 of the ’707 patent, Fitbit, Inc.
`
`v. BodyMedia, Inc., Nos. IPR2016-00543 and IPR2016-00545.
`
`In addition, the following pending applications claim priority to the ’546
`
`patent: U.S. Application Nos. 13/761,409, 13/761,557, 14/249,290, 14/248,576,
`
`14/248,776, 14/249,262, 14/249,318, 14/248,830, 14/248,853, 14/248,885,
`
`14/249,235, 14/249,314, 14/249,328, 14/284,947, 14/285,018, 14/285,036,
`
`14/292,831, 14/292,833, 14/336,413, 14/336,448, 14/336,539, and 14/336,625.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Yar R. Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625), Michael C. Hendershot (pro hac
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`vice admission to be requested), and David T. Okano (Reg. No. 66,657) are back-
`
`up counsel. The mailing address for all correspondence is Paul Hastings LLP, 875
`
`15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005 (Telephone: 202.551.1700/Fax:
`
`202.551.1705). Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents at PH-Fitbit-
`
`Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`The ’546 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. No. 10/940,214 (“the ’214
`
`application”) (Ex. 1003), was filed on September 13, 2004, claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 60/502,764 and 60/555,280, and purports to be a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent App. No. 10/638,588 (“the ’588 application”)
`
`(Ex. 1010), which was filed on August 11, 2003, is now abandoned, and purports
`
`to be a continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 09/602,537 (“the ’537 application”)
`
`(Ex. 1009), which was filed on June 23, 2000, is now the ’038 patent, and purports
`
`to be a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent App. No. 09/595,660 (“the ’660
`
`application”) (Ex. 1008), which was filed on June 16, 2000, and is now the ’437
`
`patent. See Ex. 1001 at 1:11–19.
`
`The ’437 patent is directed to a system that monitors an individual’s
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`physiological information using sensors, and reports that information in various
`
`ways. See Ex. 1006 at 1:50–51. The ’038 patent adds disclosure of a sensor device
`
`that is “adapted to be placed in contact with [the] individual’s upper arm” and
`
`includes “at least one of an accelerometer, a GSR [galvanic skin response] sensor
`
`and a heat flux sensor.” See Ex. 1007 at 1:56–60, 19:59–25:15, Figs. 12–20. As
`
`discussed in section V, the claims of the ’546 patent are not entitled to the June
`
`2000 filing dates of the ’437 and/or ’038 patent applications.
`
`A. The ’546 Patent
`The ’546 patent relates to a weight control system for an individual. Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:24–26. The system is “directed to achieving an optimum energy balance,
`
`which is essential to progressing toward weight loss-specific goals.” Id. at 4:21–24.
`
`“Weight Manager” software receives input from the individual including height,
`
`weight, gender, and estimated physical activity level. See Ex. 1001 at 22:47–23:2.
`
`The Weight Manager prompts the individual to establish weight-loss goals,
`
`including a “current weight, goal weight, [and] goal date to reach the goal weight.”
`
`Id. at 23:9–14. The Weight Manager then suggests a “diet and exercise plan,”
`
`which may include “appropriate exercises” and “daily meal plans to help the
`
`[individual] attain their . . . goals.” Id. at 23:27–51. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 20.
`
`Like prior art weight-loss programs,
`
`the system can
`
`track caloric
`
`consumption by “manual input of consumed food items,” Ex. 1001 at 4:56–5:6,
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`and energy expenditure using “an apparatus on the body” to continuously monitor
`
`various data, which is “uploaded to [a] software platform for determining the
`
`number of calories burned, the number of steps taken and the duration of physical
`
`activity,” id. at 4:33–43, 4:52–55. This wearable apparatus may include sensors for
`
`detecting data that can be used to derive parameters such as the individual’s heart
`
`rate, pulse rate, or activity level—which are described as “physiological
`
`parameters,” id. at 10:22–30, Table 1—and sensors for detecting data that
`
`“relat[es] to activity state or the environment surrounding the individual” and
`
`includes data used to determine air quality, ambient temperature, or global
`
`positioning of the individual—which are described as “contextual parameters,” id.
`
`at 10:5–9, 13:1–7. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 21.
`
`The system uses the energy expenditure information collected from the
`
`wearable apparatus and the caloric intake information entered by the individual to
`
`provide feedback regarding the individual’s progress toward weight-loss goals and
`
`recommendations for reaching those goals. Ex. 1001 at 5:7–10. This feedback may
`
`include suggestions of a new meal plan or new exercise plan. Id. at 35:23–38.
`
`These “suggestions may include simple hints,” such as to “visit the gym more, park
`
`farther from the office, or log food items more regularly,” id. at 35:50–55, or more
`
`targeted messages such as “You’ve been too lazy! I’m ordering you to get out there
`
`and exercise more this week,” id. at 38:15–17. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 25.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`V. EFFECTIVE PRIORITY DATE OF CLAIMS OF THE ’546 PATENT
`Because at least claim
`
`1 of the ’546 patent (its sole
`
`independent claim) is not
`
`supported under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 by the ’437 and ’038
`
`patent applications filed on
`
`June 16 and 23, 2000,
`
`respectively
`
`(collectively,
`
`“the June 2000 applications”), Petitioner assumes herein that the effective priority
`
`date of the ’546 patent’s claims is September 12, 2003—the filing date of the
`
`earliest provisional application to which the ’546 patent claims priority (No.
`
`60/502,764).1 See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`1 The intervening ’588 application filed on August 11, 2003 is a continuation of,
`
`and shares the same disclosure with, the ’038 patent application filed in June 2000.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:11–14. Thus, discussion of the ’038 patent application applies
`
`equally to the ’588 application. Regardless, both prior art references asserted
`
`herein remain prior art to the ’546 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even using the
`
`filing date of the ’588 application rather than the earliest provisional application.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`1997) (“[T]o gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 120, each application in the [priority] chain . . . must comply with the
`
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”). Petitioner reserves all rights
`
`to establish a later priority date if the Board institutes review.
`
`A. New Matter Added to the ’546 Patent
`The ’546 patent application contains new matter relating to “a weight loss or
`
`management application.” Ex.1001 at 19:61–62. More than 46 of the 60 columns
`
`of the ’546 patent’s specification contain some new matter not part of the June
`
`2000 applications, with more than half consisting entirely of new matter. See Ex.
`
`1011 at 33–62 (new matter highlighted). Ten of the thirty figures are new,
`
`including diagrams of a “Weight Manager” module (id. at 12, 43 (22:47–60)), a
`
`“weight tracking subsystem” that “allows [an individual] to record weight changes
`
`over time” (id. at 13, 45 (25:36–38)), and a “Weight Manager Interface” that
`
`displays aspects of the individual’s energy balance “to track and predict weight
`
`loss and progress” (id. at 20, 48–55 (32:42–45:61)). Ex. 1002 at ¶ 31.
`
`B.
`
`The June 2000 Applications Do Not Disclose Multiple Limitations
`of Claim 1 of the ’546 Patent
`
`In order for claim 1 of the ’546 patent to be entitled to a June 2000 filing
`
`date, both the ’437 and ’038 patents must describe every limitation of the claim “in
`
`sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor
`
`invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” See Lockwood, 107
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`F.3d at 1572. A description that merely “renders obvious the invention for which
`
`an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id. Rather, the requirement is
`
`satisfied with “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams,
`
`formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Id. And these descriptive
`
`means in the specification “must contain an equivalent description of the claimed
`
`subject matter.” Id. See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`(explaining it is “not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to
`
`construct the patentee’s [claimed invention] from the teachings of the disclosure,”
`
`but “whether the application necessarily discloses that particular [claimed
`
`invention].” (emphasis in original)). The June 2000 applications do not contain an
`
`equivalent description of a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an
`
`individual’s weight-loss goal by performing each of the steps recited in subparts
`
`b.(i)–(v) of claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of skill in the art can clearly
`
`conclude the applicant invented the claimed invention. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 30–38.
`
`For example, the June 2000 applications do not contain an equivalent
`
`description of limitations in claim 1 reciting that the processing unit is configured
`
`to “(ii) prompt [the] individual to establish a weight-loss goal” or “(iv) determine
`
`weight-loss.” See id. The June 2000 applications only mention the individual’s
`
`weight in limited fashion. See Ex. 1007 at 13:10–12, 14:57–59, 15:46–48, 15:53–
`
`58. Some mentions of weight relate to asking for (id. at 13:10–12) or displaying
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`(id. at 15:53–58) the individual’s current weight—and do not provide an equivalent
`
`description of a processing unit configured to prompt the individual to establish a
`
`weight goal. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 32. Other mentions of weight relate to using the
`
`individual’s current weight to suggest nutrition targets (Ex. 1007 at 14:57–59) or a
`
`target caloric intake (id. at 15:46–48), and do not provide an equivalent description
`
`of a processing unit configured to determine weight-loss. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 32.
`
`Although the claims of the ’437 patent recite “a preset physiological status
`
`goal,” see Ex. 1006 at 20:65–21:24, this goal relates to the attainment of a “healthy
`
`daily routine” for an individual that “may include any combination of specific
`
`suggestions for incorporating proper nutrition, exercise, mind centering, sleep, and
`
`selected activities of daily living,” see id. at 15:28–32, Fig. 5. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 33;
`
`see also Ex. 1008 at 86, 114–17, 769–70 (Patent Owner appeal brief asserting that
`
`support for a “preset physiological status goal” and “establishing” such a goal is
`
`provided at page 25, lines 11–17 and page 22, line 12 to page 23, line 17 of the
`
`specification as filed, neither of which section describes a weight-loss goal). As
`
`discussed above, there is no “descriptive means,” much less an equivalent
`
`description in the specification or claims as filed of the ’660 application that would
`
`necessarily disclose a processing unit configured to establish a weight-loss goal for
`
`the individual. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 33; Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.
`
`Further, there is no equivalent description in the June 2000 applications that
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`necessarily discloses a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an
`
`individual’s weight-loss goal by generating a first suggestion to engage in an
`
`activity to assist the individual to achieve the goal (claim 1.b.iii), generating a
`
`second such suggestion if weight loss is not progressing towards that goal (claim
`
`1.b.v), or basing the second suggestion on a determination of whether the
`
`individual complied with the first suggestion (claim 1, first “wherein” statement)
`
`such that a skilled artisan could “clearly conclude that the inventor invented the
`
`claimed invention.” See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 34.
`
`Moreover, during prosecution of the ’214 application (that issued as the ’546
`
`patent), the examiner found that the pending claims were not enabled and failed to
`
`comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ex. 1003
`
`at 670–71. Specifically, the examiner found the only pending independent claim to
`
`be new matter because the specification “d[id] not provide disclosure regarding the
`
`use of a processor evaluating the effectiveness of feedback.” Id. at 671. In
`
`response, the applicant referenced new matter that included a “Weight Manager
`
`module.” Id. at 735; see Ex. 1011 at 43–46 (22:47–27:67), 104–14. The applicant
`
`also referenced new matter as supporting the ability to establish specific weight
`
`goals. See Ex. 1003 at 735 (“Further specific weight loss goals are also established.
`
`Page 40, lines 16-19.”); id. (“Weight loss goals include input and evaluation of
`
`weight, projected period of weight loss, exercise goals and food management.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`Pages 40, line 16-page 41, line 6.”). The applicant also referenced new matter to
`
`support the processing unit’s determination of weight-loss by tracking the
`
`individual’s entered weight over time. Id. (“Weight data is entered by the user over
`
`time and compared to the target weight. Page 45, lines 6-20.”). The referenced
`
`portions of pages 40–41 and 45 of the specification are new matter. See Ex. 1011 at
`
`44 (23:9–14), 105; id. at 44 (23:9–31), 105–06; id. at 45 (25:36–58), 110.
`
`In short, to demonstrate support for limitations reciting a processing unit
`
`configured to establish specific weight goals and determining weight loss—
`
`limitations substantively similar to those the ’546 patent claims—the applicant
`
`referenced new matter. For example, the referenced new matter at page 40 (Ex.
`
`1003 at 42; Ex. 1011 at 44 (23:9–14)) describes a processing unit configured to
`
`prompt the individual to establish a weight-loss goal (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 35–36):
`
`On the weight goals screen 1025, the user is given the option of
`setting weight loss goals. If the user selects this option, the user will
`be asked to enter the following information to establish these goals:
`current weight, goal weight, goal date to reach the goal weight, the
`target daily caloric intake and the target daily caloric burn rate.
`
`The new matter at page 45 (Ex. 1003 at 47; Ex. 1011 at 45 (25:36–42))
`
`describes a processing unit configured to determine weight-loss (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶ 37–38):
`
`Fig. 8 is a block diagram illustrating a weight tracking subsystem
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`1040 which allows a user to record weight changes over time and
`receive feedback. A user enters an initial weight entry 1045 into the
`weight tracking subsystem 1040. The weight tracking subsystem 1040
`calculates the percent weight change 1050 since the last time the user
`has made a weight entry.
`
`Moreover, in a subsequent office action, the applicant overcame a rejection
`
`to the “determin[ing] weight loss” limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 by relying
`
`on new matter. In particular, the examiner rejected the pending claims after
`
`finding, inter alia, the “determin[ing] weight loss” limitation to be indefinite. Ex.
`
`1003 at 933–34. In response, the applicant explained, id. at 1002–03:
`
`It is noted in the application that weight gain or weight loss will
`depend upon
`the balance of calorie consumption vs. calorie
`expenditure. See application generally and Table 4 as filed (shown
`below), showing how calorie expenditure and calorie consumption are
`balanced. The application also notes that the constant that changes
`calories into pounds of weight gain or weight loss is 3500, i.e., 3500
`calories is equivalent to 1 pound. Application as filed, paragraph
`bridging pp. 106-107.
`
`Table 4 and “pp. 106–107” are new matter added to the ’546 patent. Ex.
`
`1011 at 52 (40:4–10), 137; id. at 61–62 (58:66–59:14), 171–72. See Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶ 37–38. The examiner then withdrew the rejection, finding the applicant’s
`
`“argument’s [sic] with regard to the 35 USC 112 second and fourth paragraph
`
`rejections of claims 119-122, 151-154, 179-192 and 280-286 . . . persuasive.” Ex.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`1003 at 1017. Thus, not only do the June 2000 applications fail to include an
`
`equivalent description of multiple limitations of claim 1, the applicant expressly
`
`relied on new matter to overcome several rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 to
`
`limitations reciting that the processing unit “prompt[s] the individual to establish a
`
`weight-loss goal” and “determine[s] weight-loss.” See Ex. 1003 at 735, 825, 922,
`
`1002–03. For at least the reasons discussed above, the claims of the ’546 patent are
`
`not entitled to a June 2000 filing date.
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF
`CHALLENGE
`Petitioner certifies that the ’546 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such review of
`
`the ’546 patent on the grounds identified. Claims 1–29 of the ’546 patent are
`
`unpatentable in view of the following prior art references: U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`2001/0049470 to Mault et al. (“Mault 470”) (Ex. 1004) and International Patent
`
`Pub. No. WO 01/39089 to Mault et al. (“Mault 089”) (Ex. 1005). As discussed in
`
`section V, for purposes of this petition, Petitioner assumes herein that the effective
`
`priority date of claims 1–29 of the ’546 patent is September 12, 2003—the filing
`
`date of the earliest provision application to which the ’546 patent claims priority.
`
`Mault 470 was published as a U.S. patent application on December 6, 2001. Mault
`
`089 was published as an International Application under the Patent Cooperation
`
`Treaty on May 31, 2001. Using a September 12, 2003 priority date, Mault 470 and
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`Mault 089 are prior art to the ’546 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Claims 1–29 of the ’546 patent should be canceled on the ground that they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mault 089 in view of
`
`Mault 470. Supporting this ground, Petitioner offers a declaration from Dr. Mark
`
`A. Musen, Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics) at Stanford University
`
`and Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶¶ 1–15. Dr. Musen’s CV is attached as Exhibit 1018.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (BRI).2 In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, claim terms are given their “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740
`
`F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). This interpretation should also be informed by the
`
`prosecution history. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`
`
`2 Petitioner notes that district courts and the International Trade Commission
`
`(“ITC”) currently apply a claim construction standard based on a term’s plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Petitioner reserves its rights to make arguments based on that
`
`different standard in the district court and before the ITC.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms are also “generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” which is the meaning that the term would have had to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.3 See In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phi