`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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