UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 2
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest................................................................................ 2
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .............................. 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. THE ’576 PATENT ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’576 Patent ..................................................................... 3
`
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................. 6
`
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“a movement sensor” (Claims 1, 13, 108, 139) ............................... 8
`
`“self-contained” (Claims 1, 13, 20, 108, 110, 128, and 139) .......... 9
`
`“a computer” (Claim 13) ............................................................... 12
`
`“velocity” (Claims 1 and 13) .......................................................... 16
`
`V. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED
`RELIEF ....................................................................................................................17
`
`VI. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ........................................................17
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds for Challenges.................... 17
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......19
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 13, and 17 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Allum in view of Dougherty and Conlan ................................ 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Summary of Allum ......................................................................... 19
`
`Summary of Dougherty .................................................................. 24
`
`3. Reasons to Combine Allum and Dougherty .................................. 26
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Conlan ....................................................................... 31
`
`5. Reasons to Combine Allum and Conlan ........................................ 32
`
`6. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 35
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 20, 104, 108, 110, 118-123, 134 are invalid
`under 35 U.S.C § 103 over Allum in view of Dougherty ...................... 53
`
`1. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 54
`
`C. Challenge #3: Claims 129, 132, and 133 are invalid under 35 U.S.C
`§ 103 over Allum in view of Dougherty and Bernard ........................... 62
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Bernard ...................................................................... 62
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Allum and Bernard ....................................... 64
`
`3. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 67
`
`D. Challenge #4: Claims 139-142 are invalid under 35 U.S.C § 103 over
`Allum in view of Dougherty, Bernard, and Conlan ............................... 70
`
`1. Additional Reasons to Combine Allum and Conlan ...................... 71
`
`2. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 73
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ’576 Patent,” FTBT-1001) is generally
`
`directed to monitoring an individual’s motion with a portable electronic device.
`
`The ’576 Patent issued with 29 claims covering the portable device, a system
`
`including the device, and a method of using the device. Almost fourteen years after
`
`issuance, however, Patent Owner requested reexamination of the ’576 Patent in
`
`order to add over 150 new dependent claims. During the course of reexamination,
`
`the original independent claims were deemed unpatentable, forcing Patent Owner
`
`to add additional limitations to each. These added limitations—directed to
`
`detecting whether body motion meets a threshold—were well-known to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the earliest alleged priority date of the ’576 patent.
`
`In fact, the ’576 Patent itself acknowledges that it was known for portable
`
`electronic devices to detect when a human exceeds “a predetermined angle of
`
`flexion.” FTBT-1001, 1:39-41. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 5,919,149 (FTBT-
`
`1007, “Allum”) describes a “complete body motion analysis system” including a
`
`wearable electronic device that measures an individual’s body sway and
`
`determines if the user is about to fall. It does this by comparing the body sway
`
`against a user-defined threshold. Allum, in combination with secondary references
`
`also directed to wearable body monitoring devices, discloses every element of the
`
`device, system, and method recited in the ’576 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Accordingly, the evidence in this Petition demonstrates that claims 1, 13, 17,
`
`20, 104, 108, 110, 118-123, 129, 132-134, and 139-142 of the ’576 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103. Fitbit, Inc. (“Petitioner”) therefore
`
`respectfully requests that these claims be held invalid and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Fitbit, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition, the ’576 Patent has been asserted in
`
`LoganTree LP v. Fitbit Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01575, which was filed in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas on October 2, 2015 and transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California on May 5, 2016, Case No. 3:16-cv-02443 (“related
`
`litigation”). Additionally, due to word count limitations and given the voluminous
`
`number of dependent claims asserted in the related litigation, Petitioner is
`
`concurrently filing a second IPR petition challenging claims of the ’576 Patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Scott T. Jarratt
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,297
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’576 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioner
`
`waived service in the related litigation and Patent Owner filed the “Waiver of
`
`Service Summons” on November 12, 2015 (see FTBT-1020 at 1), which is not
`
`more than one year before the filing of this Petition. See, e.g., The Scotts Co. LLC
`
`v. Encap, LLC, IPR2013-00110, Paper 12 at 2-3 (PTAB 2013). Petitioner has not
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’576 Patent.
`
`IV. THE ’576 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’576 Patent
`
` The ’576 Patent is generally directed to an “electronic device, system and
`
`method to monitor and train an individual on proper motion during physical
`
`movement.” FTBT-1001, Abstract. The ’576 Patent recognizes that “a variety of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`sensing, monitoring, and notification devices” have been previously created “[i]n
`
`order to study and better understand safe human movement.” Id. at 1:18-21. Such
`
`known devices could “quantitatively determine a range of motion of a human joint
`
`in angular degrees” and “provide a warning to the wearer through an audible alarm
`
`or flashing light . . . when a predetermined angle of flexion or extension has been
`
`exceeded.” Id. at 1:30-41. Accordingly, the ’576 Patent acknowledges that it was
`
`previously well-known to determine whether human motion exceeds a threshold
`
`and, if so, provide a notification.
`
`The ’576 Patent’s specification describes a “self-contained movement
`
`measuring device 12” with a “movement sensor 13.” FTBT-1001, 3:32-50. The
`
`movement sensor 13 is illustrated as being both together with the other
`
`components of the device (Figs. 2A, 2B) and also as being “separate from the
`
`remaining components 15 of the device 12” (Fig. 2C). Id. Figs. 2B and 2C are
`
`annotated below based on the description in the specification:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Self-contained
`movement
`measuring device 12
`
`Self-contained
`movement
`measuring device 12
`including chest
`sensor
`
`FTBT-1001, Figs. 2B, 2C (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶25
`
`
`
`According to the specification, the movement sensor “detects movement and
`
`measures associated data such as angle, speed, and distance” and, in particular,
`
`measures “angular velocity of physical movement for subsequent interpretation.”
`
`FTBT-1001, 4:38-45, 2:40-41. In various embodiments, the movement sensor may
`
`be an “accelerometer which is capable of detecting angles of movement in multiple
`
`planes” or “multiple accelerometers each capable of measuring angles of
`
`movement in only one plane.” Id. at 4:38-48.
`
`The ’576 Patent further explains that the “movement sensor 30 is
`
`electronically connected to a microprocessor 32 which receives the signals
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`generated by the movement sensor 30 for analysis and subsequent processing.” Id.
`
`at 4:52-55. Once the microprocessor has received and analyzed the movement data,
`
`the microprocessor responds based on “user-programmable configuration
`
`information” such as “an event threshold.” FTBT-1001, 4:40-65, 5:67-6:9. For
`
`example, the device may respond by using indicators (visual, audible, or vibration-
`
`based) that are “activated to notify the wearer when a predetermined angle of
`
`motion has been exceeded.” Id. at 4:4-25.
`
`According to the ’576 Patent, data collected by the movement measurement
`
`device may be downloaded to a computer. FTBT-1001, 8:31-34. And, “[o]nce the
`
`data from the device 12 has been downloaded to the computer 16, software running
`
`on the computer 16 is used to interpret the data and produce a number of reports
`
`and histories.” Id. at 8:40-43.
`
`As shown in this Petition, all of the above concepts were well-known before
`
`the ’576 Patent.
`
`B. Prosecution History
`
`The ’576 Patent issued from U.S. App. Ser. No. 08/976,228. During
`
`prosecution, the three independent claims were each amended to describe the
`
`measuring device as a “portable, self-contained” device capable of measuring data
`
`associated with “unrestrained movement in any direction.” FTBT-1002 at 40-42.
`
`Responsive to these amendments, the Examiner allowed the pending 29 claims. Id.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`at 29.
`
`Fourteen years after issuance of the ‘576 Patent, Patent Owner filed a
`
`request for reexamination, seeking to add 129 new claims without disturbing the
`
`original 29 claims. FTBT-1004 at 438-543. The reexam request included prior art
`
`that, according to Patent Owner, raised a substantial new question of patentability
`
`yet did not teach every element of the independent claims. See, e.g., id. at 494, 499,
`
`502. The Examiner, however, disagreed and found that the cited prior art did teach
`
`every limitation of the independent claims, including the “portable, self-contained”
`
`and “unrestrained movement in any direction” features. Id. at 246-300. In response,
`
`Patent Owner amended the independent claims to include “detecting a first user-
`
`defined event …” and “storing first event information ….” Id. at 34-39. Notably, as
`
`part of these amendments, Patent Owner added an additional 27 new claims
`
`beyond the 129 new claims presented in the reexam request, bringing the total
`
`number of new claims to 156. Id. at 168-206. The reexamination resulted in a
`
`reexamination certificate with 185 claims (see FTBT-1003). The claims analyzed
`
`in this Petition are those found in the reexamination certificate.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`This petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given their
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, because the claim constructions proposed
`
`herein are based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not necessarily
`
`apply to other proceedings that use different claim construction standards. See
`
`Samsung Elecs Co. v. Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc., IPR2013-00569, Paper 9 at 2
`
`(PTAB 2013). For terms not addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific
`
`construction is necessary for this proceeding.1
`
`1.
`
`“a movement sensor” (Claims 1, 13, 108, 139)
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a movement sensor” encompasses
`
`one or more sensors that together are capable of performing the functionality
`
`recited in the claims. See FTBT-1005, ¶34. First, dependent claim 170, which
`
`depends from claim 13, recites “wherein said movement sensor comprises at least
`
`one accelerometer.” Because this dependent claim recites that the “movement
`
`sensor” can comprise more than one sensor, the recitation of “a movement sensor”
`
`in the independent claim cannot be limited to a single movement sensor.
`
`Second, the ’576 Patent’s specification contemplates utilizing multiple
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, or that the challenged claims recite patentable
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`movement sensors in a portable movement measuring device: “Alternatively,
`
`multiple accelerometers, each capable of measuring angles of movement in only
`
`one plane, may be oriented within the device 12 so that movement in multiple
`
`planes may be detected.” FTBT-1001, 4:41-48. This description is consistent with
`
`dependent claim 170, which recites using “at least one accelerometer.”
`
`Third, the reexamination file history confirms that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “a movement sensor” encompasses one or more movement
`
`sensors. Specifically, in the Patent Owner-filed reexamination request, Patent
`
`Owner argued that a plurality of sensors in a prior art reference (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,636,146 to Flentov) together disclose the “movement sensor” in the claims. See
`
`FTBT-1004, pp. 491-99; FTBT-1005, ¶¶36-37. In the Office Action following the
`
`reexamination request, the Examiner agreed. See FTBT-1004, pp. 248, 250-51;
`
`FTBT-1005, ¶38.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a movement sensor”
`
`encompasses one or more movement sensors. See FTBT-1005, ¶¶34-39.
`
`2.
`
`“self-contained” (Claims 1, 13, 20, 108, 110, 128, and 139)
`
`The ’576 Patent does not set forth an explicit definition of “self-contained”
`
`when used as an adjective modifying “device.” But, based on the claims,
`
`specification, and reexamination file history, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of a “self-contained” device at least encompasses a device whose components are
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`arranged at different locations around an individual’s body and not contained
`
`within a single housing. FTBT-1005, ¶41.
`
`First, dependent claim 6 (which depends from claim 1) recites:
`
`6. The device of claim 1 wherein said movement sensor is
`housed separately from said microprocessor.
`
`Because this dependent claim recites that the movement sensor of the device is
`
`housed separately from the microprocessor, the “self-contained” device of the
`
`independent claim cannot be limited to a device with all components housed
`
`together.
`
`Second, as discussed above, the specification describes an embodiment of
`
`the “self-contained movement measuring device 12,” shown in Fig. 2C (annotated
`
`below), in which some components device are “separate from the remaining
`
`components 15 of the device 12” and are not contained within a single housing.
`
`FTBT-1001, 3:47-57 (emphasis added); see also id. at 3:52-62 (noting that a
`
`separate “movement sensor 13 can be placed anywhere on the individual’s body”
`
`because doing so “gives additional flexibility in the use of the device 12.”)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Self-contained device 12
`includes components arranged
`at different locations around
`individual’s body
`
`
`
`
`
`FTBT-1001, Fig. 2C (annotated);
`FTBT-1005, ¶43.
`
`
`
`Third, the reexamination file history confirms this understanding.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argued in its reexamination request—and the Patent
`
`Office agreed—that the “self-contained” device limitation of claims 1, 13, and 20
`
`was met by a movement measuring device (reproduced below) whose components
`
`are arranged at different locations around an individual’s body, and not contained
`
`within a single housing. See FTBT-1004, pp. 505-24, 251-254; FTBT-1005, ¶¶45-
`
`46.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Device that includes components
`disposed at different locations
` around individual’s body
`
`FTBT-1016, Fig. 2 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶45
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “self-contained”
`
`device at least encompasses a device whose components are arranged at different
`
`locations around an individual’s body and not contained within a single housing.
`
`See FTBT-1005, ¶40-47.
`
` “a computer” (Claim 13)
`
`3.
`Claim 13 is reproduced below as printed in the reexamination certificate2:
`
`
`2 In the reexamination certificate, claim 13 is split between columns 1 and 2. For
`
`optical clarity, the two portions of the claim have been vertically aligned.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 13 is a “system” claim that recites various components of the system,
`
`such as the “portable, self-contained movement measuring device.” In the above
`
`reproduction of claim 13, the “computer” limitation is indented to the same level as
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`the sub-limitations under the “portable, self-contained movement measuring
`
`device” limitation, making it appear as if the “computer” is a sub-component of the
`
`portable, self-contained movement measuring device. This indentation fluctuated
`
`during prosecution (FTBT-1002 at 41, 52) and reexamination (FTBT-1004 at 444),
`
`making it unclear whether the computer is an element of the movement measuring
`
`device or external to it.
`
`The specification, however, describes a system that contains three
`
`components: (i) a “movement measuring device,” (ii) a “computer,” and (iii) a
`
`“download device,” where the computer is “external” and distinct from the
`
`portable movement measuring device. FTBT-1001, 2:65-67; see also id. at 3:20-
`
`24, 5:52-55. Fig. 1 of the ’576 Patent illustrates this system:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Computer
`
`Movement measuring device
`
`Download device
`
`FTBT-1001, Fig. 1 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶50
`The specification describes transferring data between the external computer
`
`
`
`and the movement measuring device, where the download device is connected
`
`between the computer and the movement measuring device and facilitates the
`
`transfer. FTBT-1001, 5:51-55, 7:6-9. The language of the “download device”
`
`limitation in claim 13 is consistent with the specification in that the claim recites
`
`that the download device is for transmitting data “between” the movement
`
`measuring device and the computer.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer” in claim
`
`13 at least encompasses a computer that is external to and not a sub-component of
`
`the “portable, self-contained movement measuring device.” See FTBT-1005, ¶¶48-
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`53.
`
`4.
`
`“velocity” (Claims 1 and 13)
`
`Claims 1 and 13 recite in part “wherein said movement sensor measures the
`
`angle and velocity of said movement.” The ’576 Patent does not set forth an
`
`explicit definition of “velocity.” However, whenever the specification uses the
`
`term “velocity” it does so in the context of describing the “angular velocity” of a
`
`body’s physical movement. For instance:
`
`. . . a device must not only be able to record the frequency of
`improper movements, but also monitor the angular velocity and
`general tendencies of the wearer with regard to the unsafe
`movement habits. The angular velocity of any physical action
`affects the stretching and tautness of the muscle involved in the
`motion. Thus, information on angular velocity is important to
`monitoring and analyzing improper movement.
`
`FTBT-1001, 1:60-67 (emphasis added).
`
`It is another object of this invention to provide a system which
`monitors, records and analyzes the time, date, angle of
`movement, and angular velocity of physical movement for
`subsequent interpretation.
`
`Id. at 2:38-41 (emphasis added).
`
`The movement sensor 30 generates signals corresponding to the
`measurement data collected. In a preferred embodiment, the
`movement sensor 30 is an accelerometer which is capable of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`detecting angles of movement in multiple planes as well as the
`velocity at which the movement occurs.
`
`Id. at 4:40-45 (emphasis added).
`
`Based on the above disclosures in the ’576 Patent, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “velocity” in claims 1 and 13 at least encompasses angular
`
`velocity. See FTBT-1005, ¶¶54-56.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`V.
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1, 13, 17, 20, 104, 108,
`
`110, 118-123, 129, 132-134, and 139-142 of the ’576 Patent, and cancel those
`
`claims as invalid.
`
`As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Joseph
`
`Paradiso, the concepts described and claimed in the ’576 Patent were not novel.
`
`This petition explains where each element of the challenged claims is found in the
`
`prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’576 Patent.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`This petition challenges the validity of claims 1, 13, 17, 20, 104, 108, 110,
`
`118-123, 129, 132-134, and 139-142 of the ’576 Patent on four grounds:
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`Claims
`Challenge
`Challenge #1 1, 13, 17
`
`Challenge #2 20, 104,
`108, 110,
`118-123,
`134
`Challenge #3 129, 132,
`133
`
`Challenge #4 139-142
`
`Ground
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No. 5,919,149 to
`Allum in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,027,824 to
`Dougherty and U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 to Conlan
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Allum in view of Dougherty
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Allum in view of Dougherty and
`further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,883,063 to
`Bernard
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Allum in view of Dougherty,
`Bernard, and Conlan
`
`
`
`Allum (FTBT-1007)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,149 to Allum was filed March 14, 1997 and issued
`
`July 6, 1999, and is thus prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Dougherty (FTBT-1008)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,027,824 to Dougherty issued July 2, 1991, and is thus
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Conlan (FTBT-1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 to Conlan issued November 12, 1996, and is thus
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Bernard (FTBT-1010)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,883,063 to Bernard issued November 28, 1989, and is thus
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 13, and 17 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Allum in view of Dougherty and Conlan
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Allum
`
`Allum is generally directed to “providing non-invasive testing of the
`
`postural sway of a human subject during standing or movement tasks.” FTBT-
`
`1007, 1:11-21. Allum’s postural testing uses a wearable motion measuring device
`
`that includes (i) “light-weight wearable body sway sensors that don’t restrict the
`
`subject’s movement (id. at 6:10-11)” (ii) a “portable processor attached to the
`
`subject” (16:17-19) and (iii) a “feedback system . . . also attached to the subject’s
`
`body” (8:8-12). Allum teaches that, because the body sway sensors don’t restrict
`
`the subject’s movement, “continuous subject monitoring may be obtained, and
`
`feedback provided, without significantly interfering with the subject’s day-to-day
`
`activities.” Id. at 6:8-14. Fig. 2 of Allum illustrates the body sway measurement
`
`device:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Elements of wearable body
`sway measuring device
`
`FTBT-1007, Fig. 2 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶59
`With respect to the wearable sensors, Allum teaches that “[v]arious different
`
`
`
`types of sensors 12 may be used to measure the body sway angle and body sway
`
`angular velocity of the subject.” FTBT-1007, 8:66-9:1. Allum explains that its
`
`body movement sensors are together capable of measuring data associated with
`
`movement along three orthogonal axes: (i) side-to-side or “roll” motion about a
`
`first axis, (ii) front-to-back or “pitch” motion about a second axis, and (iii) turning
`
`or “yaw” motion about a third axis. Id. at 8:27-65. Allum further explains that
`
`“[s]ignals from the body sway sensors on the subject are provided to a
`
`microprocessor based system processor” which is “programmed to transform the
`
`angular position and velocity information provided by the sensors into useful
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`information formats.” Id. at 4:18-23.
`
`Allum teaches that its device is configured to “test[] for the presence of
`
`balance disorders,” one of which is unintended “body sway” that causes falling.
`
`FTBT-1007, 6:1-8; 5:13-21, 6:25. In order to test for fall events, the
`
`microprocessor collects and interprets movement data from the sensors, and detects
`
`whether a subject’s “body sway is approaching or has exceeded the limits of
`
`safety, i.e., the subject’s angular sway has approached within a certain percentage
`
`of the angular cone of stability.” FTBT-1007, 14:7-11. If so, a “fall warning” is
`
`provided by visual, auditory, and/or tactile feedback systems. Id. at 15:48-50, 7:56-
`
`61. Allum teaches that the detection step is based on both the movement data
`
`collected by the sensor and several user-defined “variable parameters” such as the
`
`subject’s “cone of stability” and the “proximity to the cone of stability which the
`
`subject’s upper body deviation angle must approach” before a warning is issued.
`
`Id. at 13:16-28. Fig. 6 illustrates Allum’s method including setting parameters,
`
`collecting movement data, detecting a fall event, and issuing a fall warning:
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Set user-defined
` parameters
`
`Collect body
`angle data
`
`Detect fall event
`and issue warning
` based on data
`and parameters
`
`FTBT-1007, Fig. 6 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶61
`
`
`
`Allum further explains that when the feedback system issues a fall warning,
`
`the system saves in memory the “circumstances involved” including the “time of
`
`day.” FTBT-1007, 14:47-54, 15:48-53.
`
`Additionally, Allum teaches that its monitoring system also includes a
`
`“remote” system processor (e.g., a “conventional microprocessor based computer
`
`system”) in communication with the processor attached to the subject, allowing
`
`body sway information to be transmitted to the remote processor for formatting
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`and display. FTBT-1007, 8:3-19, 7:8-13. A “computer program” on the remote
`
`computer analyzes the movement data and generates reports and “time histories”
`
`for display, as shown in Fig. 3 (id. at 14:61-15:16, 4:18-32, 10:10-13):
`
`Time histories displayed by a computer
`program on the remote system
`
`FTBT-1007, Fig. 3 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶63
`
`
`
`To the extent that Allum does not explicitly teach a “download device,”
`
`download devices were conventionally used to transmit data wirelessly between a
`
`wearable body monitor device and a computer before the ’576 Patent, as evidenced
`
`by Dougherty, described below.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`To the extent Allum does not explicitly teach that its wearable device
`
`includes “a power source” and a “real-time clock,” it was well-known that
`
`wearable body monitor devices typically included power sources and real-time
`
`clocks, as also evidenced by Dougherty described below.
`
`To the extent Allum does not explicitly teach that its measuring device
`
`includes “at least one user input” connected to its system processor attached to the
`
`user, it was well-known that wearable body monitoring devices similar to Allum’s
`
`included user buttons, as evidenced by Conlan, described below.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Dougherty
`
`Like Allum, Dougherty describes a wearable, self-contained electronic
`
`device that collects information about an ambulatory subject’s body. Specifically,
`
`Dougherty is directed to a “patient-wearable monitor [for] detecting cardiac
`
`events.” FTBT-1008, Abstract. “[T]he cardiac monitor unit constantly monitors the
`
`electrocardiogram of the patient” and, if a cardiac event is detected, information
`
`about the event is recorded, including “date, time, and reason for recording the
`
`event.” FTBT-1008, 24:43-44, 24:63-65, 22:25-23:27, 20:52-21:8.
`
`The cardiac monitor includes a “battery module” to power the components
`
`of the monitor for up to three months. FTBT-1008, 7:13-19, 22:4-10. Additionally,
`
`the monitor includes a real-time clock in the form of a “[c]lock/calendar unit 14
`
`[that] maintains the date and time.” Id. at 6:48, 4:21-24.
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Real-time clock
`
`Battery
`module
`
`FTBT-1008, Fig. 2 (annotated); FTBT-1005, ¶68
`
`
`
`Dougherty explains that the cardiac monitor is used with a “base station”
`
`that includes a “personal computer” and a download device called a “programmer
`
`unit.” FTBT-1008, 22:26-33. Specifically, “[t]he cardiac monitor is placed in the
`
`programmer unit of the base station personal computer and wireless
`
`communication, through the infrared detector, begins with the personal computer.”
`
`Id. at 23:56-66. Dougherty notes that “[t]hese infrared communications eliminate
`
`the