UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MCAFEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,545,207
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH A. PARADISO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`Docket No. 39303000036
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
`
`II.  BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................... 1 
`
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... 4 
`
`IV.  DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS ................................................................ 5 
`
`V.  THE ’207 PATENT ........................................................................................... 8 
`
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION............................................................................... 9 
`
`VII.  OBVIOUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ’207 PATENT ....................... 10 
`
`A.  Obviousness of the Claims 1-3 and 7-14 of the ’207 Patent Based on
`Devecka and Allard ................................................................................. 10 
`
`1.  Relevant Disclosures in Devecka .................................................... 10 
`
`2.  Relevant Disclosures in Allard ....................................................... 12 
`
`3.  Obviousness in View of Devecka and Allard ................................. 13 
`
`B.  Obviousness of the Claims 4-6 and 15-19 of the ’207 Patent Based on
`Devecka, Allard and Lombardi ............................................................... 15 
`
`C.  Obviousness of Claims 1 and 7-14 of the ’207 Patent Based on Murphy
` ................................................................................................................. 16 
`
`1.  Relevant Disclosures in Murphy ..................................................... 16 
`
`2.  Obviousness in view of Murphy ..................................................... 17 
`
`D.  Obviousness of Claims 2-4, 6 and 15-19 in View of Murphy and French
` ................................................................................................................. 17 
`
`1.  Relevant Disclosure of French ........................................................ 17 
`
`2.  Obviousness of Claims 2-4, 6 and 15-19 Based on Murphy and
`French .............................................................................................. 17 
`
`i
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`Docket No. 39303000036
`
`E.  Obviousness of Claim 5 based upon Murphy, French and Lombardi .... 18 
`
`F.  Conclusion ............................................................................................... 18 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`I, Joseph A. Paradiso, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Yamaha Corporation of America
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Yamaha”) as a technical expert in connection with the proceeding
`
`identified above. I submit this declaration in support of Yamaha’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (IPR) of United States Patent No. 6,545,207 (“the ’207
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at a rate of $450 per hour for my work on this matter.
`
`I have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`Appendix A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. As shown in
`
`my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to various fields of physical,
`
`electrical, and computer science with more than two decades focused on
`
`embedding sensing, including wearable and wireless sensors.
`
`4.
`
`I am the Alexander W. Dreyfoos (1954) Professor in Media Arts and
`
`Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where I direct the
`
`Responsive Environments Group, which explores how sensor networks augment
`
`and mediate human experience, interaction and perception. I also serve as co-
`
`director of the Things That Think Consortium, a group of MIT Media Lab
`
`1
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`researchers and industrial partners focused on the future of embedded computation
`
`and sensing.
`
`5.
`
`I received my B.S. in electrical engineering and physics summa cum
`
`laude from Tufts University in 1977 and my Ph.D. in physics from MIT in 1981.
`
`From 1981 to 1984 I did post-doctoral research at the Swiss Federal Institute of
`
`Technology (ETH) in Zurich, working on sensor technology for high-energy
`
`particle physics. From 1984-1994, I was a physicist at the Draper Laboratory in
`
`Cambridge, Massachusetts, where, as a member of the NASA Systems and
`
`Advanced Sensors and Signal Processing Directorates, my research included
`
`spacecraft control systems and sensor technology for both sonar systems and high-
`
`energy physics. From 1992-1994, I directed the development of precision
`
`alignment sensors for
`
`the GEM muon detector at
`
`the Superconducting
`
`Supercollider, and worked on design of particle detectors at the CERN Large
`
`Hadron Collider (LHC). I joined the MIT Media Laboratory in 1994.
`
`6.
`
`Upon joining the Media Laboratory, I focused on developing new
`
`sensing modalities for human-computer interaction, then evolved my research into
`
`wearable wireless sensing and distributed sensor networks. This work anticipated
`
`and influenced transformative products and industries that have blossomed in
`
`recent years. For example, the sensor-laden wireless shoe I developed for
`
`interactive dance in 1997 is recognized as a watershed in the field of wearable
`
`2
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`wireless sensing and was an inspiration for the Nike+, one of the very first activity
`
`trackers and the first commercial product to integrate dynamic music with
`
`monitored exercise.
`
`7.
`
`I have been also designing, building, and using electronic music
`
`synthesizers and systems since the mid-1970’s. The large modular synthesizer that
`
`I
`
`designed
`
`and
`
`built
`
`between
`
`30
`
`and
`
`40
`
`years
`
`ago
`
`(http://web.media.mit.edu/~joep/synth.html)
`
`
`
`is one of
`
`the world’s
`
`largest
`
`synthesizer systems, and has achieved wide renown, being featured in Keyboard
`
`Magazine (1996 and 2000), in live exhibitions at the Ars Electronica Festival in
`
`Austria (2004) and the MIT Museum (2012).
`
`8.
`
`I am also a recognized expert in electronic music controllers. My first
`
`years at the Media Lab addressed what has become a major research frontier in
`
`computer music, namely the design of controllers and interfaces that enable a
`
`performer to harness the expressive potential of digitally generated sound. The
`
`many systems that I invented (ranging from the world's first precision wireless
`
`violin bow tracker for virtuosos to free-gesture interfaces for novices) and the
`
`many publications that I authored in this space (including a landmark article in
`
`IEEE Spectrum that first brought musical interfaces to prominence) established me
`
`as a leader in this field. Accordingly, MIT Press approached me to author a
`
`3
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`textbook on musical interfaces. I have been teaching classes on sensor technology
`
`and electronic music interfaces at MIT since 2001.
`
`9.
`
`Leading to over 250 publications (over 50 of which are about
`
`electronic music synthesis and controllers), at least 16 issued patents, and a string
`
`of awards in the Pervasive Computing, Human Computer Interaction, Musical
`
`Controllers, and Sensor Network communities, my research has become the basis
`
`for widely established curricula. I have also advised over 55 graduate students on
`
`various research projects and publications.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the ’207 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001 to the Petition) and its prosecution history, as well as Apple’s Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of the ’207 patent. I have also considered the following
`
`materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,036,742 to Youakim (“Youakim”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,739,457 to Devecka (“Devecka”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,733,193 to Allard et al. (“Allard”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,721,302 to Murphy (“Murphy”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,883,271 to French (“French”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,899,633 to Lombardi (“Lombardi”)
`
`4
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are generally
`
`construed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that in IPR proceedings, claim terms are given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`12.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made. I have also been informed that an obviousness determination requires
`
`consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter; (3) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claimed subject matter
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for example, it
`
`results from (1) the combination of known elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results, (2) the simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another to obtain predictable results, (3) the use of a known technique to improve
`
`5
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`similar devices in the same way, (4) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, or (5) pursuing known
`
`options within one’s technical grasp in response to a design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem. I have also been informed that the analysis of
`
`obviousness incorporates the logic, judgment, and common sense of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, which does not necessarily require explication in any
`
`particular reference.
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’207 patent at the time of the alleged invention would include a person with a
`
`knowledge of sensors of various kinds for sensing user input, and knowledge
`
`regarding the design of electronic circuits to process sensor signals, including a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electronics and at least one year of experience in circuit
`
`design. However, I recognize that someone with less technical education and more
`
`experience—and vice versa—could also meet this standard.
`
`15.
`
`I do not believe that “the art” pertaining to the ’207 patent would be
`
`restricted to drums or even musical instruments, but would more broadly
`
`encompass sensing and measurement of various physical activities performed by
`
`people. This is a field that encompasses numerous varied activities, but which
`
`share many things in common with respect to signal sensing and use. Examples of
`
`related sensing abound in the literature, extending well before the priority date of
`
`6
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`the ’207 patent. Many systems made to count foot taps for clinical evaluation can
`
`be found in the literature already going to 1945.
`
`16. More recently, Irish step dancers are known to be competitive in
`
`regards to their foot tap rate. One of my former academic collaborators, Dr.
`
`Mikael Fernstrom of the University of Limerick in Ireland made a system using a
`
`contact microphone on a wood floor in 1997 to measure the tapping rate of
`
`renowned dancer James Devine. The system Fernstrom fielded gave Devine a
`
`real-time readout of taps/s, taps/m and total taps in a session, and was
`
`demonstrated on Irish TV in 1997. I myself made an award-winning sensor-laden
`
`shoe for dancers to control real-time electronic music in 1997 that featured
`
`embedded piezoelectric sensors in the heel to record and time heel strikes
`
`(http://resenv.media.mit.edu/danceshoe.html).
`
`17. As mentioned in my 1997 survey article, it was already not unusual
`
`for drummers to put contact pickups onto their drums in the 1960s and feed those
`
`signals into envelope followers (common in modular synthesizers at the time) that
`
`filtered and conditioned the analog drum signals, then discriminated them with an
`
`in-line comparator with adjustable threshold to extract a reliable drum trigger that
`
`was then used to produce electronic sound. I remember personally seeing concerts
`
`in the mid 70s where electronic music sequencers were rapidly stepped by a
`
`drummer playing successive drum hits. I had both such an envelope follower and a
`
`7
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`binary counter (with binary display and reset button) in my first modular
`
`synthesizer cabinet that I completed back in 1976. I would often attach
`
`microphones and pickups to the envelope follower back then to discriminate hits
`
`and bursts of audio into triggers, then feed this to the counter so musical events
`
`would happen after a set number of triggers were counted.
`
`18. Digital drum synthesizers from the early 1990s commonly came with
`
`inputs for drum triggers, many of which used piezoelectric pickups and
`
`incorporated various signal processing and filtering operations to make hit
`
`detection more robust. I myself have owned an Alesis D4 for decades – released in
`
`1991, it sported 12 analog trigger inputs, and allowed adjustment of 5 parameters
`
`for each input that changed the operation of things like crosstalk filters, ringdown
`
`dampers, and thresholds. I’ve implemented systems like this myself in the digital
`
`world – already in 1996, my ‘Rhythm Tree’ nodes (described in the 1997 article)
`
`featured an piezoelectric (PVDF) strip molded into the drumhead along with
`
`embedded circuitry and microprocessor that conditioned and digitized the analog
`
`signal and produced a stream of parameters describing the strike and its decay.
`
`V. THE ’207 PATENT
`
`19. The ’207 patent (Ex. 1001) is directed to a device for counting strikes
`
`on a surface, such as the surface of a drum, over a predetermined time interval and
`
`displaying the count value. The patent discloses use of the device with either an
`
`8
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`acoustic drum or an electronic drum. A sensor, such as a piezoelectric sensor, is
`
`provided to sense drum strikes. A counter counts the number of strikes, and a
`
`count display displays the number of strikes occurring during a preset interval
`
`which is set by a preset dial selector. A timer is employed to count the interval,
`
`and an additional display can be provided to display the remaining time.
`
`20. The functionality of the ’207 patent is very straightforward and
`
`simple. Sensors for acoustic and electronic drums, including piezo sensors, were
`
`well known for many years prior to the ’207 patent, as evidenced by the Lombardi
`
`patent. Such sensors and their associated circuitry produce trigger signals
`
`indicating that the drum has been struck. In addition, the circuitry to count strikes
`
`over a predetermined interval and display the count, as well as the time is very
`
`straightforward and could easily be implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Indeed, the specification of the ’207 patent is less than three columns long.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`21. The opinions I set forth in my invalidity analysis below are generally
`
`based on how a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’207 patent would have
`
`understood the claimed invention at the time the provisional application to which
`
`the ’207 patent claims priority was filed in 1999.
`
`22. The term “count information presenter” in claims 1 and 19, when
`
`given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
`
`9
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`encompasses numerous different types of information presenters and is not limited
`
`to the LED displays shown in the embodiment. The specification identifies at Col.
`
`2:22-29 that various different types of displays can be used to present the number
`
`of counts.
`
`23. The term “power supply” in claim 13 is not limited to inclusion of a
`
`power source such as a battery or AC power, because as noted at Col. 3:1-10, the
`
`disclosed “power supply 132” does not include the power source, but instead
`
`receives power from “an external power supply (not shown).”
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ’207 PATENT
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claims 1-19 of the ’207 patent are at issue. In my
`
`opinion, these claims would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. In
`
`particular, my opinion is that the claims would have been obvious based on (1)
`
`Devecka in view of Allard or Allard and Lombardi and (2) Murphy, alone or in
`
`view of French or French and Lombardi. The claim charts in Yamaha’s Petition,
`
`which I have not reproduced here, detail how disclosures in those prior art
`
`references correspond to the limitations of the claims at issue.
`
`A. Obviousness of the Claims 1-3 and 7-14 of the ’207 Patent Based
`on Devecka and Allard
`1.
`
`Relevant Disclosures in Devecka
`
`25. Devecka discloses an arcade game which includes electronic drums.
`
`Devecka discloses that the drum pads are preferably standard electronic drum pads
`
`10
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`employing piezoelectric sensors. Devecka discloses various modes of operation,
`
`as discussed in connection with FIGS. 4-4C. One such mode is a “jam against the
`
`machine” mode, which is described at Col. 9:21-64. Lines 20-36 state:
`
`If the user selects the “jam against the machine” mode in step
`
`406 as illustrated in FIG. 4 then that mode is entered in step 407A as
`further illustrated in FIG. 4A. A second menu is preferably displayed
`in step 408A to allow the user to select a jamming level matched to
`his or her level of skill, for example, beginner 1, advanced beginner 2,
`intermediate 3 or expert 4. Next, a warmup is cued in step 409A. For
`example, a voice may say “let’s warm up, give me a drum roll, come
`on speed it up”. Simultaneously, on screen 105, the user’s speed of
`striking the pads, for example, a speed level of 0-100 beats per a
`predetermined time interval, such as fifteen seconds, shows the
`user the speed of the drum roll. Next, the voice may say, “not bad,
`not bad at all.” It will be recognized that different warmup exercises
`may be employed, as well as, different measures of the user’s
`proficiency. For example, the user’s proficiency in correctly
`following the correct rhythm or tempo may be measured.
`
`(Devecka at 9:20-36; emphasis added.)
`
`26. The underlined sentence above states that a “user’s speed of striking
`
`the pads” is presented to “show[] the user the speed of the drum roll.” In my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is not referring
`
`to making a determination of the tempo in beats per minute at which the drummer
`
`is playing based upon measuring the time between two consecutive strokes (as
`
`11
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`done in Youakim), but rather a determination and display of how many total beats
`
`the drummer played over the fifteen second time interval. If it was intended to
`
`refer to tempo, it would have almost certainly been stated using the typical
`
`measure of beats per minute (bpm) instead of fifteen seconds. In addition, the
`
`statement of “per a predetermined time interval” in my opinion would indicate to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art that the drum roll exercise is to be continued and
`
`measured for that amount of time.
`
`2.
`
`Relevant Disclosures in Allard
`
`27. Like Devecka, Allard is directed to an arcade game. The game in
`
`Allard is a boxing game in which a punching bag is struck and the number of hits
`
`over a predetermined interval counted and displayed. Allard provides a sensor 46
`
`to detect bag strikes. The sensor can be a piezo sensor.
`
`28. The Allard apparatus includes a display section 16 for indicating both
`
`a game score and time to the player, as described in the specification at 5:63-6:7:
`
`Display section 16 includes a game score display 52, a time display
`54, and an optional progressive display 56. The game score display
`52 is preferably an LED display that indicates a game score to the
`player based on the performance of the player during the game. In the
`described embodiment, the game score is displayed as the number of
`“hits”, i.e., the number of times the object 34 has been detected by
`sensor 46, which typically corresponds to the number of times the
`player has hit or struck the player object 34. The time display 54 is
`
`12
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 15
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`also preferably an LED display that indicates the amount of time that
`the player has left in a game, e.g. in seconds.
`
`29.
`
` The portion of Figure 1 that includes the display (both the game score
`
`display 52 and the time display 54) is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Obviousness in View of Devecka and Allard
`
`30. The counting and display structure and operations described in Allard
`
`are substantially identical to what is described in the ’207 patent, except that Allard
`
`describes the operation in connection with counting strikes of a player object such
`
`as a punching bag or “any such object which can be hit or forced by a player
`
`repetitively” during a game, whereas the ’207 patent claims recite “a drum beat
`
`counter” in the preambles of claims 1 and 19 and a method of measuring strikes
`
`“by a drummer” in the preamble of claim 15. Although it is my understanding that
`
`such preamble recitations may not limit the claims, I have been asked by counsel to
`
`consider that the claims here are limited to drums.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that prior art is considered “analogous” if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,
`
`13
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 16
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, and that if a
`
`reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference
`
`relates to the same problem, and that fact supports the use of that reference in an
`
`obviousness rejection. In this case, it is my opinion that Allard is clearly
`
`analogous art. Allard has exactly the same purpose as the claimed invention in the
`
`’207 patent, i.e., the counting of strikes on a surface over a predetermined amount
`
`of time and presentation of a representation of the total number of strikes, and is in
`
`my opinion is very pertinent to the problem addressed in the ’207 patent of
`
`determining drumming speed. In addition, both Allard and the ’207 patent
`
`describe an apparatus and system to measure physical performance on devices that
`
`respond to human strikes.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
`
`of Devecka and Allard to meet the limitations of claims 1-3 and 7-14. All of the
`
`limitations of the claims are disclosed in the references, as shown in the claim
`
`charts in the petition. Devecka discloses counting strikes on a drum in an arcade
`
`game. Allard clearly discloses the counting and presentation of strikes on a
`
`punching bag in another arcade game, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`simply be applying a known technique (i.e., counting and presenting strikes as in
`
`Allard) to a known device (i.e., the drum apparatus of Devecka) that was ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results. Moreover, Devecka at states at Col.
`
`14
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 17
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`9:32-36 that plural different measures of a user’s proficiency may be provided.
`
`Therefore, even if the disclosure of Devecka was considered to be a determination
`
`of instantaneous speed rather than counting (which I do not agree with for the
`
`reasons discussed above), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to provide the additional feature of strike counting and display in
`
`Devecka in view of Allard in order to beneficially provide the actual number of
`
`counts over the predetermined time interval so as to provide such different
`
`desirable information, i.e., a timed exercise. As noted above, Devecka even
`
`suggests providing plural different proficiency measurements.
`
`B. Obviousness of the Claims 4-6 and 15-19 of the ’207 Patent Based
`on Devecka, Allard and Lombardi
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`combine the teachings of Devecka, Allard and Lombardi to meet the limitations of
`
`claims 4-6 and 15-19. Lombardi discloses a conventional piezo sensor for
`
`detecting drum strikes on either an acoustic drum or an electronic drum. Lombardi
`
`provides filtering of the sensor output by means of the circuitry shown in FIGS. 5
`
`and 6. It would have been obvious to use this conventional sensor in the
`
`Devecka/Allard system. Such is simply applying conventional piezo sensor
`
`filtering techniques to the known piezo sensor of Devecka/Allard. Lombardi
`
`clearly discloses the specific filtering as set forth in the claims, as identified in the
`
`claim charts.
`
`15
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 18
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1 and 7-14 of the ’207 Patent Based on
`Murphy
`1.
`
`Relevant Disclosures in Murphy
`
`34. Murphy generally discloses a punching bag system including
`
`measurement circuitry to count and display strikes. Murphy describes a system
`
`that is almost identical to the ’207 patent:
`
`If the user selects the counting mode he or she must also key in the
`desired interval of time over which the CPU is to count. The CPU
`will then produce a “start signal” which will cause the signal indicator
`86 to either flash a light or sound a horn. The user then strikes the bag
`continuously until the light flashes or the horn sounds for a second
`time. After the selected interval of time has elapsed the CPU will
`again cause the signal indicator to flash a light for example and will
`display the number of time in which the bag was struck during the
`selected interval.
`
`(Murphy at 5:46-56.)
`
`35. As is the case with Allard, Murphy is clearly analogous art to the ’207
`
`patent. The purpose - counting strikes on a surface over a predetermined amount
`
`of time and displaying a strike count - is identical. In addition, both Murphy and
`
`the ’207 patent describe an apparatus and system to measure physical performance
`
`on devices that respond to human strikes. With respect to many of the claims,
`
`Murphy discloses all of the recited structure, lacking only the preamble recitation
`
`of being a drum beat counter.
`
`16
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 19
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`2. Obviousness in view of Murphy
`
`36.
`
`I agree that every limitation in the body of claims 1 and 7-14 are
`
`disclosed in Murphy as indicated in the claim charts contained in the petition. As
`
`Murphy is analogous art, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to employ this structure for use in counting drum strokes,
`
`and that these claims are therefore obvious in view of Murphy.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 2-4, 6 and 15-19 in View of Murphy and
`French
`1.
`
`Relevant Disclosure of French
`
`37. French discloses a punching bag having a piezoelectric sensor that can
`
`be connected to a digital readout, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 10 of the patent. As
`
`described in connection with FIG. 9 of French, the signal from the piezoelectric
`
`sensor has residual waves that include noise. Similar to Murphy, French discloses
`
`a counter can be provided to indicate the number of impacts, and particularly the
`
`number of impacts which exceed a specified threshold value. French explains that
`
`an electronic filter can be provided to preclude transmission of signals below such
`
`a threshold. French further discloses that a clock can be provided for indicating the
`
`amount of time that the system has been in use during a session.
`
`2. Obviousness of Claims 2-4, 6 and 15-19 Based on Murphy
`and French
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to provide the additional features of French relating to filtering and display
`
`17
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 20
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`in the apparatus of Murphy, as such would have simply constituted the
`
`combination of known elements to provide predictable results. The disclosures of
`
`the two patents are very similar, and it would have been immediately apparent to
`
`one of skill in the art that their features could be combined. Murphy and French
`
`disclose all of the claim limitations, as set forth in the claim charts in the petition.
`
`E. Obviousness of Claim 5 based upon Murphy, French and
`Lombardi
`
`39. As discussed above, Lombardi discloses a piezo sensor that includes
`
`filtering. One aspect of that filtering is the provision of a comparator that receives
`
`the sensor signal and a reference signal from a sensitivity adjust controller to
`
`provide a threshold adjustment.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`employ the conventional strike sensor of Lombardy in Murphy and French. Such
`
`is nothing more than the combination of known elements to provide predictable
`
`results.
`
`F. Conclusion
`
`41. As explained above, the prior art and the ’207 patent address the same
`
`problem and disclose the same solutions. In my opinion, all of the references are
`
`analogous art, and there are no non-obvious differences between the claimed strike
`
`counting and display of the ’207 patent and the strike counting and display of the
`
`prior art. Each of claims 1-19 is unpatentable based upon this art.
`
`18
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 21
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 6,545,207
`
`Docket No. 393030000036
`
`*>l<*
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001
`
`of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: October 28, 2016
`
`19
`
`Yamaha
`
`Exhibit1011
`
`Page22
`
`
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 22
`
`

`
`
`
`CURRICULUM VITAE OF JOSEPH A. PARADISO
`
`Yamaha Exhibit 1011 Page 23
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Beginning
`4/89
`
`
`Ending
`7/94
`
`8/92
`
`
`
`10/91
`
`2/84
`
`
`
`10/92
`
`12/91
`
`4/89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`May, 1981
`May, 1977
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`School of Architecture and Planning Faculty Personnel Record
`
`Date: July 2016
`
`
` Full Name:
`Joseph A. Paradiso
` Department: Program in Media Arts and Sciences
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`Date of Birth:
`December 20, 1955
`
`2.
`Citizenship:
`
`USA
`
`Immigration Status: N/A
`
`3.
`Education:
`School
` Degree
`
`