`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-02012
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`_______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, PH.D., IN SUPPORT
`OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Michael Caloyannides, have been retained by Patent Owner
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (“Blackbird” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`to provide my opinions in support of their Response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212 to Pyles, issued on August 13, 2002 (“’212
`
`Patent,” Ex. 1001) pursuant to the legal standards set forth below. I am being
`
`compensated for my time at the rate of $200 per hour for time spent on both non-
`
`deposition tasks and for deposition time. I have no interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding, and no part of my compensation is contingent upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my technical review, analysis,
`
`insights, and opinions regarding the Declaration of Dr. Tanzeem Choudhury
`
`(“Choudhury Declaration,” Ex. 1005) on the patentability of claims 2, 5, and 6 of the
`
`‘212 patent and Fitbit, Inc.’s (“Petitioner” or “Fitbit”) Petition that relies on the
`
`Choudhury Declaration. I have also reviewed the deposition transcript of Dr.
`
`Choudhury from July 13, 2018 (Ex. 2003).
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have also reviewed U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,241,684 to Amano et al. (“Amano,” Ex. 1003) and U.S. Patent No. 6,145,389 to
`
`5,033,013 to Kato et al. (“Kato,” Ex. 1001).
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed portions of the file history of the ‘212 patent (Ex.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`1002), and its parent, U.S. Patent No. 6,175,608 (Ex. 1006) as well as other
`
`documents referenced below in this Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration sets forth the opinions I have formed in this case based
`
`on my study of the evidence, my understanding as an expert in the field, and my
`
`education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Until very recently, I was Senior Scientist for TASC, Inc., a technology
`
`company located in Northern Virginia, and since December 2013, I am an independent
`
`consultant in the fields of telecommunications, radar, radio navigation, signal
`
`processing, and Information Technologies. I am also an adjunct professor at both
`
`Johns Hopkins University and George Washington University. I have also been a
`
`consultant to NASA/NIAC for approximately ten years.
`
`7.
`
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience.
`
`8.
`
`Until mid-December 2013, I was employed by TASC, Inc. as a Senior
`
`Scientist. TASC, Inc. is a northern Virginia-based consulting firm providing cutting-
`
`edge technological, scientific, management and security solutions to the US Federal
`
`Government in general and to the US Intelligence Community in particular. That firm
`
`specialized in the following areas: Analog and digital telecommunications and design
`
`and testing of transmitters and receivers for such telecommunication; radio navigation;
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`signal processing; mathematical solutions to a broad spectrum of technological
`
`problems; telecommunications through all media and channels; Advanced Physical
`
`Security; Computer Forensics; Rapid Response Program Management; Avionics, and
`
`Database and Software Engineering. As Senior Scientist at TASC, I contributed to
`
`many of the firm’s numerous scientific and technological efforts in the above fields,
`
`specifically
`
`including
`
`an
`
`assessment of
`
`transmitters
`
`and
`
`receivers
`
`for
`
`telecommunications and the evolving cellular infrastructure.
`
`9.
`
`I also currently serve as adjunct faculty to George Washington and Johns
`
`Hopkins Universities, a position I have held for numerous years.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics
`
`and Philosophy from the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) in 1972. I
`
`also hold an M.S. in Electrical Engineering (’68) and a BSc in Science with honors
`
`(’67), both awarded by Caltech.
`
`11.
`
`Immediately prior to joining TASC, Inc., I was the Chief Scientist
`
`for Ideal Innovations, Inc. (“I-3”), a Northern Virginia technology solutions provider
`
`to the US Government. During my two year employment with I3, that company was
`
`recognized as one of the fastest growing companies in the United States.
`
`12.
`
`Prior to joining I-3, I worked from 1999 to 2006 as a Senior Fellow
`
`with Mitretek Systems (now renamed Noblis), a Washington, DC area “think tank” in
`
`mathematical analyses and solutions to various aspects of telecommunications of
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`voice, video, data, and telemetry, including RF technologies, cellular telecom, digital
`
`networks, computer forensics, radar, radio navigation, and related aspects of the broad
`
`discipline of telecommunications.
`
`13.
`
`From 1998 to 1999 I worked for Boeing Corp., which is primarily a
`
`Systems Integrator for complex electronics, as a Senior Scientist. I was responsible
`
`for managing Boeing’s entry into the commercial information technology business as
`
`well as the broadband commercial satellite telecommunications industry for aircraft. I
`
`also maintained technical oversight of the U.S. Department of Defense’s satellite-
`
`based location-tracking of all Army mobile platforms, specifically including the
`
`design, analysis and testing of transmitters and receivers.
`
`14.
`
`From 1984 to 1998, I was a Senior Scientist (SIS-3 senior executive
`
`level) for a U.S. Government agency. Half that time was spent leading the technical
`
`oversight of field operations, while I served as Chief Scientist in the Research &
`
`Development division for the remaining 7 years. I supervised the technical and
`
`strategic aspects of most new technical developments in a wide spectrum of fields,
`
`including:
`
`• Analog and digital telecommunications.
`
`• Radar and radio navigation.
`
`• Covert communications.
`
`• Signal exploitation: interception, spoofing.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15. While with the U.S. Government, I also led teams that developed state-of-
`
`the-art techniques for special telecommunications and the strategic planning for the
`
`incorporation of new technologies into operations. In addition, I personally designed
`
`numerous pioneering technologies in:
`
`• Uninterceptable telecommunications.
`
`• Analog and digital design and testing of transmitters and receivers for
`
`audio, video, data, telemetry, and other signals.
`
`• Encryption, data hiding, and steganographic techniques.
`
`• Advanced physical security to negate countermeasures to conventional
`
`physical security.
`
`16.
`
`From 1971 to 1984 I held various positions with Rockwell International
`
`Corp. (now Boeing Corp.) before departing as Chief Scientist for classified space
`
`technologies. I was a key contributor to the early stages of the GPS satellites before
`
`any were launched. This effort included the design of complex receivers for receiving
`
`such GPS signals. I also developed new digital communications systems for which I
`
`received a U.S. patent and I also developed classified telecommunications systems for
`
`clandestine operations. I also designed and developed special purpose radar systems.
`
`17. My career highlights include the following:
`
`• In-depth hands on experience with telecommunications that covers six
`
`decades. At the age of 10, I was the youngest licensed amateur radio
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operator in Greece, and I had designed and fabricated from scratch a
`
`complete two-way radio station for global communications.
`
`• In-depth knowledge of the theoretical aspects of transmitter and receiver
`
`performance and limitations based on analytical studies that led to a
`
`Ph.D. from Caltech. My Ph.D. thesis concerned theoretical aspects of
`
`optimal receiver designs in the presence of noise, and was published in a
`
`peer reviewed publication.
`
`• In-depth knowledge of radar and of ways to implement radar that is
`
`largely undetectable by their intended targets.
`
`• Experience as an expert witness in patent infringement cases regarding
`
`telecommunications, radar, radio navigation, and signal processing.
`
`• Senior Retained Consultant for business development for numerous U.S.
`
`and multinational corporations that resulted in the award of multimillion
`
`dollar contracts for clients. Served as technical advisor on GPS,
`
`Inmarsat, Cellular telephony (GSM, AMPS, CDMA, evDO, 3G and 4G),
`
`fiber-optics, other telecommunications, computer & physical security,
`
`RF propagation, Internet, VPN.
`
`• Author of numerous books, articles and other publications, including two
`
`single-author textbooks, Desktop Witness: Do’s and Don’ts of Personal
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Security
`
`(June 2002) and Computer Forensics and
`
`Privacy/Security (2001).
`
`• Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and of that organization’s Communications Security Technical
`
`Committee.
`
`• Member, Tau Beta Pi (Engineering Honorary Society).
`
`• Member, Sigma Xi (Science Honorary Society).
`
`18. My teaching engagements and lecture series include:
`
`• From 2002 to the present I have served as an adjunct professor at Johns
`
`Hopkins University in the Applied Physics Laboratory teaching graduate
`
`level courses.
`
`• From 2004 to approximately 2010, I have served as an adjunct professor
`
`at George Washington University,
`
`teaching classes on digital
`
`technologies, including digital telecommunications, radio navigation,
`
`signal processing, and related disciplines.
`
`• I developed and had been personally delivering two highly acclaimed 2-
`
`day seminars on “Evolving Technologies,” which were attended by
`
`thousands of employees from many U.S. Government offices.
`
`• I previously served as Adjunct Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at George Mason University in 1998.
`8
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• In 1970 I was a part time instructor at California State University at
`
`Pomona, teaching Feedback Control, and at Caltech, teaching Stochastic
`
`Feedback.
`
`19. My recognitions and commendations include:
`
`• “Scientist of the Year” (1987, at a major U.S. Government Agency with
`
`tens of thousands of employees);
`
`• “Meritorious Officer” (1989, US Government);
`
`• Five “Exceptional Accomplishment Awards,” US Gov’t. 1984-98.
`
`20.
`
`Please see my curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit 2002 for a list of my
`
`published works, selected conferences, and academic presentations.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I am not an attorney and therefore I offer no opinions on the law. I have
`21.
`
`been advised of the following general principles of patent law to be considered in
`
`formulating my opinions as to the issues of the validity of the challenged claims.
`
`22. Anticipation: I have been informed by counsel that for a claim to be
`
`invalid as anticipated, the challenger in an inter partes review must show, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that all the elements of a claim are present in a single
`
`previous device or method, or sufficiently described in a single previous printed
`
`publication or patent. To anticipate the claim, the prior art does not have to use the
`
`same words as the claim, but all the requirements of the claim must have been
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosed expressly or inherently, so that looking at that one reference, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could make and use the claimed invention. A requirement of a
`
`claim that is missing from a prior art may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`requirement is necessarily present in that prior art. All elements of the claim must also
`
`be disclosed in the reference as they are arranged in the claim.
`
`23. Obviousness: I have been informed by counsel that for a claim to be
`
`invalid as obvious, it must be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of
`
`technology of the patent at the relevant time. The existence of every element of the
`
`claimed invention in multiple prior art references or systems does not necessarily
`
`prove obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art.
`
`Obviousness may be found in an inter partes review proceeding only where there is a
`
`preponderance of evidence that the differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art are such that each patent claim at issue when considered as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the technology to which said patent pertains. Obviousness analysis
`
`involves determining the scope and content of the prior art; and ascertaining the
`
`differences between the prior art and the patent claims at issue.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that in determining whether any of the
`
`challenged claims are obvious, I should consider whether the prior art discloses or
`
`suggests all the elements of the challenged claims. I understand that I should also
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`consider whether there was a reason that would have prompted a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements (whether those elements are
`
`disclosed in different prior art references or in different embodiments in a single
`
`reference) in a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1)
`
`whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art
`
`elements according to their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention
`
`provides an obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the
`
`prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the
`
`invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the
`
`claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (6) whether the
`
`change resulted more from design incentives or other market forces. To render a claim
`
`obvious, the prior art must have provided a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`25. Dr. Choudhury, Petitioner’s declarant, submitted a declaration stating
`
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) of the patented technology
`
`at the time of the invention of the ‘212 Patent, or 1998, would have a “bachelor’s
`
`degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with at
`
`least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`signal analysis, or a person with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking,
`
`motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis.” Ex. 1005, ¶47.
`
`26.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Choudhury’s definition of a PHOSITA in this case. I
`
`note that although the qualifications Dr. Choudhury describes would qualify one as a
`
`PHOSITA in this case, I do not believe the definition of a PHOSITA here would be
`
`so limited. The technology of the ‘212 Patent implicates other fields, such as Sports
`
`Medicine, Exercise Science, and Physiology. I believe that a bachelor’s degree in
`
`one of these fields, or a similar field, with at least two years of practical experience
`
`working with pedometers and/or health or fitness trackers or sensors, or an advanced
`
`degree in one of these areas, could qualify one as a PHOSITA in this case.
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that the ‘212 patent will expire on October 28,
`
`2018, before this inter partes review is set to conclude. I have also been informed that
`
`the claims of a patent that is set to expire before the conclusion of an IPR are
`
`construed in inter partes review according to a district court’s standard, and that in the
`
`current IPR, the Board has agreed to use this standard. I understand that under that
`
`standard, the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of the subject patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. THE ’212 PATENT
`28. The ‘212 Patent describes and claims an improved exercise monitoring
`
`device that tracks a user’s activity and reports key fitness metrics back to the user.
`
`(See generally, ‘212 Patent, “Summary of the Invention”). The device includes a
`
`pedometer, which is a portable electromechanical device for determining the distance
`
`a person travels on foot. (‘212 Patent, 1:17-18). According to the patent, the
`
`inventions claimed in the ‘212 Patent were born out of the inventor’s research into
`
`ways of solving problems with prior art pedometers, such as complexity and
`
`inaccuracy. (Id. at 2:8-11). Complexity and inaccuracy are serious problems because
`
`they tend to defeat the purpose of the pedometer’s inclusion in an exercise monitoring
`
`device, which is to provide a wearable device that informs the user of the distance he
`
`or she has walked or run while exercising. (Id. at 1:12-18).
`
`29. To overcome the problems of complexity and inaccuracy, the inventor
`
`conceived of a novel pedometer that reduces design complexity, increases distance
`
`calculation accuracy, and improves calibration efficiency. (Id. at 2:15-26).
`
`30. The pedometer also includes a data processor that is programmed to
`
`determine the distance travelled by multiplying the step count by a stride length.
`
`Specifically, the data processor must derive the stride length used to make the distance
`
`determination from a range of stride lengths. These stride lengths are, in turn,
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`calculated from a range of stride rates (i.e., number of strides over some period of
`
`time), such as in walking and running.
`
`31.
`
`In claims 2 and 5 the data processor is programmed to select a stride
`
`length “with reference to a plurality of calibrations.” This calibration process allows
`
`for the selection of a stride length to be used in the distance calculation that more
`
`closely matches the user’s actual stride length, which as a result makes the distance
`
`calculation more accurate.
`
`32. Similarly, claim 6 recites a programmatic mechanism that allows a
`
`pedometer to leverage the fact that stride length varies according to stride rate.
`
`Specifically, the data processor must derive the stride length used to make the distance
`
`determination from a range of stride lengths. These stride lengths are, in turn,
`
`calculated from a range of stride rates (i.e., number of strides over some period of
`
`time).
`
`33. The ‘212 Patent describes significant advantages of the claimed
`
`inventions over prior art pedometers. It explains that, with the claimed pedometers,
`
`unlike prior art pedometers, repeated calibrations are not required (absent significant
`
`fitness improvements):
`
`This third option for calculating stride length, and subsequently distance, speed,
`and pace, is a far more accurate method than a fixed stride length pedometer.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This device and method are also practical, convenient, and has a relatively low
`manufacturing cost…. If there are no significant improvements in time, then
`recalibration is not necessary. (‘212 Patent, 6:10-19 (emphasis added)).
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`34. As I will explain below, I disagree with Dr. Choudhury’s opinions and
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious
`
`by Amano, or obvious over Kato in view of Amano.
`
`A. Ground 1
`I have reviewed Blackbird’s Response to the Petition’s challenge that
`35.
`
`Amano anticipates claims 2 and 5, and understand that Blackbird’s Response is being
`
`filed concurrently with this Declaration. I agree with Blackbird’s Response to the
`
`Petition’s anticipation challenge based on Amano. Specifically, in my opinion,
`
`Amano does not disclose “programmed to calculate a distance travelled by multiplying
`
`a number of steps counted by the step counter by a stride length.”
`
`36. Claims 2 and 5 recite a specific method of calculating distance:
`
`multiplying the number of steps “counted by the step counter by a stride length.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 7:3-14 (claim 2), 7:24-8:4 (claim 5). For claim 2, the “stride length…varies in
`
`accordance with a stride rate.” For claim 5, the “stride length…varies according to the
`
`rate at which steps are counted.”
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Petitioner alleges Amano discloses “multiplying the user’s ‘pitch’ (i.e.,
`
`number of steps per unit time) by the user’s stride length to determine a distance
`
`travelled by the user over a period of time.” Pet. 43. In my opinion, that is not an
`
`accurate characterization of Amano’s disclosure.
`
`38. Amano discloses a system in which the user’s pitch, which is the number
`
`of steps per unit of time, is sampled at time intervals and this sampling is used “to
`
`calculate the distance run by the test subject per unit of time.” Ex. 1003 at 12:4-21.
`
`“Distance run per unit of time,” e.g., 5 miles-per-hour, is a measure of speed, not
`
`distance. Amano then specifies that “[t]his distance run,” i.e., the “distance run by the
`
`test subject per unit of time,” “is multiplied by the user’s body weight…to obtain
`
`exercise intensity.” Id. at 12:17-21. Amano never discloses calculating the actual
`
`distance traversed by the user.
`
`39. Petitioner points to Amano’s disclosure relating to “step Sa3” of a series
`
`of calculations used to arrive at and display a measure of exercise intensity. Pet. 43-
`
`44. Petitioner states that, in step Sa3, Amano’s CPU “multiplies the pitch by ‘the
`
`subject[’s] stride which is stored in RAM 203...to calculate the distance run by the test
`
`subject per unit time,’” Pet. 44, implying that “step Sa3” involves multiplying the
`
`number of steps in a given unit of time by a stride length to arrive at the distance
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`travelled. However, the full passage makes clear that the calculations performed in
`
`Amano are different than those of claims 2 and 5.
`
`40.
`
` The calculation set forth in “step Sa3” actually involves “multipl[ying]
`
`the test subject’s stride which is stored in RAM 203 with the pitch detected on the
`
`immediately preceding step, to calculate the distance run by the test subject per unit of
`
`time.” Ex. 1003 at 12:15-18. Thus, this calculation does not involve multiplying the
`
`“number of steps counted by the step counter” by “stride length,” as recited in the
`
`claims. Rather, it involves multiplying the subject’s stride length by the pitch detected
`
`on a single step.
`
`41. That the system disclosed in Amano is calculating speed for purposes of
`
`measuring exercise intensity, rather than counting steps to determine distance, is
`
`further made clear by the fact that the system only performs these measurements at
`
`certain time intervals. Amano expressly discloses that these measurements and
`
`calculations occur only “at specific time intervals (30 sec, for example).” Id. at 12:4-8
`
`(“CPU 201 detects the initiation of running by the test subject (step S8), and gives
`
`permission to execute interrupt processing (step S11). CPU 201 then executes the
`
`calculation display processing shown in FIG. 7 at specific time intervals (30 sec, for
`
`example).”). This is also made plain in Figure 7, notably not relied on by Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`which depicts the flow of these calculations, including “step Sa3,” and notes that they
`
`are “EXECUTED EVERY 30S AFTER PERMISSION.”
`
`42. Accordingly, Amano does not disclose calculating distance and, even if
`
`the data processing steps disclosed in “step Sa3” could be read to calculate distance,
`
`Amano never “multipl[ies] a number of steps counted by the step counter” by a stride
`
`length, as recited in the claims.
`
`B. Ground 2
`I have reviewed Blackbird’s Response to the Petition’s challenge that
`43.
`
`Amano renders claims 2 and 5 obvious. I agree with Blackbird’s Response on this
`
`challenge.
`
`44. Amano discloses a fundamentally different system in which a user’s
`
`“pitch” is detected at intervals, based on the analysis of a single stride, to determine a
`
`user’s speed. Ex. 1001 at 12:15-18. There is no disclosure in Amano of distance
`
`calculation and no disclosure of “multiplying a number of steps counted by the step
`
`counter by a stride length.”
`
`45. Amano focuses on a problem that is different from that solved by the ‘212
`
`patent. Amano is concerned with measuring exercise intensity or “the determination of
`
`maximum oxygen uptake.” For example, Amano’s embodiment 2, upon which
`
`Petitioner relies to allege a teaching of calculating “a distance travelled by multiplying
`
`a number of steps counted by the step counter by a stride length,” while completely
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 18 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`silent on an actual teaching of calculating a “distance,” seeks to allow “the maximum
`
`oxygen uptake quantity (VO2max/wt) to be obtained more accurately.” Amano at
`
`17:17-20. None of Amano’s eight embodiments focus on the problem solved by the
`
`’212 patent, which is a means for improved accuracy in the determination of distance
`
`travelled.
`
`46. Amano’s focus on exercise intensity or maximum oxygen uptake as
`
`opposed to accurate distance determination is underscored by Amano’s view on the
`
`relationship between stride rate and stride length. In my opinion, it is generally
`
`understood that when speed increases, stride length increases. The ‘212 patent
`
`discloses this relationship: “the faster a user is moving, the longer will be the stride
`
`length;” “[o]ver the course of the run or walk, the user’s step rate and, therefore, stride
`
`length will change and the user will cover more ground when moving fast and less
`
`ground when moving slow.” ‘212 patent at 4:13-18. Accordingly, a person walking
`
`typically has a smaller stride length than that same person running. The inventor of
`
`the ‘212 patent used this relationship to determine a more accurate stride length based
`
`upon the speed of the user, and used that more accurate stride length to calculate a
`
`more accurate distance traveled.
`
`47. Amano, on the other hand, has the general view that stride becomes
`
`“shorter when the pitch of running is increased.” Amano at 16:19-21. Amano depicts
`
`this relationship in Figure 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 19 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Dr. Choudhury views this relationship as one where the speed of the user
`
`stays constant. (Deposition Transcript of Dr. Tanzeem Choudhury (Ex. 2003) at
`
`87:16-89:21). This view is consistent with Amano’s belief that stride length generally
`
`decreases with increased pitch (stride rate). When speed is kept constant but pitch
`
`(stride rate) increases, stride length has no choice but to decrease. Imagine moving
`
`from point A to point B in ten seconds while taking 10 steps. Now imagine again
`
`going from point A to point B in ten seconds, except this time taking 40 steps. Speed
`
`in both instances is the same, since the user travelled the same distance (point A to
`
`point B) in the same amount of time (10 seconds). But whereas with the first example,
`
`the user may have been walking at a slow pace, when the user quadruples his steps
`
`while travelling the same distance, the user is then essentially running or jogging while
`
`taking shorter strides (visualize almost running or jogging in place except moving
`
`slowly forward).
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, this is consistent with Amano’s focus on exercise intensity
`
`or maximum oxygen uptake, which are mostly concerned with the unit of time in
`
`which exercise is performed as opposed to accurate total distance determination. For
`
`example, using the above example, when a user travels a set distance in 10 seconds
`
`while taking 40 steps, that exercise is much more intense than when the user travelled
`
`the set distance in 10 seconds while taking 10 steps. It also follows that Amano’s
`
`thoughts on stride length varying with pitch has nothing to do with stride length
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 20 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`varying with speed. As a result, Amano is not concerned with determining a more
`
`accurate stride length based upon a stride rate correlating to the speed of the user.
`
`Thus, Amano does not and cannot provide a more accurate calculation of distance
`
`travelled based upon the changing stride length of the user. Accordingly, in my
`
`opinion, a skilled artisan, looking at the teachings of Amano would not be motivated
`
`to modify Amano to “calculate a distance travelled by multiplying a number of steps
`
`counted by the step counter by a stride length.”
`
`C. Ground 3
`I have reviewed Blackbird’s Response to the Petition’s challenge that
`50.
`
`Kato in view of Amano renders claim 6 obvious. I agree with Blackbird’s Response to
`
`this challenge.
`
`51. Petitioner contends that Kato discloses “programmed to calculate a
`
`distance traveled by multiplying a number of steps counted by a stride length that
`
`varies according to a rate at which steps are taken” because it allegedly discloses
`
`“calculating a distance by multiplying the user’s pitch by his or her stride length.” Pet.
`
`71. However, I do not believe that is what Kato discloses.
`
`52. Kato expressly discloses calculating the distance travelled by multiplying
`
`the user’s speed by the time travelled. Ex. 1004 at 4:62-69 (“This method [of
`
`measuring distance travelled by a walker]… further comprises the step of multiplying
`
`the walking speed by said unit of time after the walking speed is calculated to obtain
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2017-02012
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 21 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`the distance travelled by the walker in said unit of time.”). To the extent the total
`
`distance travelled is determined by Kato, it is determined by “the same steps as the
`
`method of measuring the distance travelled by a walker,” i.e., by multiplying the user’s
`
`speed by the time travelled, and “integrating the distance travelled by the walker in
`
`said unit of time for the entire session of walking to obtain the corresponding
`
`cumulative distance travelled by the walker.” Id. at 5:2-10 (“This method [of
`
`measuring a cumulative distance] comprises the same steps as the method of
`
`measuring the distance travelled by a walker . . . and further comprises the step of
`
`integrating the distance travelled by the walker in said unit of time for the entire
`
`session of walking to obtain the corresponding cumulative distance travelled by the
`
`walker.”). This is a fundamentally different calculation than calculating a distance
`
`travelled by “multiplying a number of steps counted by a stride length that varies
`
`according to a rate at which steps are taken,” as recited in claim 6.
`
`53. Petitioner and its expert appear to contend that Kato discloses this
`
`limitation because Kato’s specification discloses that the user’s speed is determined by
`
`multiplying the “‘the stride...by the pitch….” Pet. 72 (quoting Ex. 1001 at 4:50-51).
`
`However, in my opinion, this does not disclose calculating “a dis
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
