`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`TOMTOM, INC. Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`Issue Date: August 13, 2002
`
`
`Entitled: PEDOMETER
`
`
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: 2017-02017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS BLACKADAR REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,434,212
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A. Engagement ................................................................................................ 1
`B. Background and Qualifications................................................................... 1
`C. Compensation .............................................................................................. 6
`D. Information Considered .............................................................................. 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 7
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................................ 9
`III. OPINION ....................................................................................................... 15
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 15
`B. Construction of Terms Used in the ’212 Patent Claims ........................... 16
`C. Brief Description of the References Relied Upon .................................... 18
`1.
`Priority Date of the ’212 Patent ................................................ 18
`2.
`Jimenez ...................................................................................... 18
`3.
`Levi ........................................................................................... 19
`4.
`Ebeling ...................................................................................... 28
`D. Obvious to Combine Jimenez and Levi .................................................... 32
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 32
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 50
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 55
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 56
`i
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 59
`7.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 62
`8.
`E. Obvious to Combine Jimenez and Ebeling ............................................... 63
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 70
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 73
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 74
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 76
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 78
`7.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 79
`8.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 82
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 83
`
`
`ii
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an expert witness in
`
`1.
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`(“the ’212 Patent”) (EX1001) and on the patentability of the claims of this patent,
`
`particularly in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,367,752 to Jimenez et al. (“Jimenez”)
`
`(EX1002); U.S. Patent No. 5,583,776 to Levi et al. (“Levi”) (EX1003); and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,145,389 to Ebeling et al. (“Ebeling”) (EX1004).
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`I, Thomas Blackadar, make this declaration. All statements herein
`
`2.
`
`made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 years of age and
`
`otherwise competent to make this declaration. Although I am being compensated
`
`for my time in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`
`3.
`
`Attachment A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. I earned a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of New Hampshire in 1981. Since then, I have devoted my career to the
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`field of communications, wearable devices and sensor systems.
`
`4.
`
`Further, as shown in my curriculum vitae, I have significant
`
`professional and academic experience in the field of wearable devices and sensor
`
`systems. I have been working with sensor systems for collecting and analyzing
`
`data relating to an individual’s physiological state for many years. In particular, I
`
`have worked and otherwise interacted with professionals and students of various
`
`experience and expertise levels in the wearable devices field. But, throughout, my
`
`primary focus has related to developing, identifying, demonstrating, testing, and
`
`consulting on wearable devices and sensor systems embodied in complex hardware
`
`and software products. For example, I have been involved in the development of
`
`technologies related to sensor systems for collecting and analyzing data relating to
`
`an individual’s physiological state. I have provided consulting services for
`
`wearable computing devices for small, medium, and large companies. These
`
`technologies include near real-time data delivery for vital signs monitors, wearable
`
`accurate speed distance watch and sensors, real-time vital signs monitoring for
`
`broadcast TV, low power accelerometers, lower power electronic systems,
`
`personal area wireless networks, and Warfighter Physiological Status Monitors for
`
`determining human stress levels. I have also provided to customers advanced
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`electrocardiogram (“ECG”) monitors, sensor data-fusion solutions, advanced low-
`
`power networking topologies designs, and design review services.
`
`5.
`
`I am currently the owner of FitSense Technology LLC. FitSense was
`
`founded to put the human body online by turning personal information into
`
`information that is actionable for the user.
`
`6.
`
`I also participate on the Canyon Ranch Institute Advisory Group
`
`Disruptive Health Technologies Council and am an active member of the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I am particularly active in the
`
`IEEE Personal Health Device Standard group (IEEE 20601-11073) and have been
`
`involved in the development of medical/health device communication standards
`
`that enable communication between medical, health care, and wellness devices and
`
`with external computer systems. I am also an active member of Healthcare
`
`Information and Management Systems Society, and past member of the American
`
`College of Sports Medicine.
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved in multiple conferences in the field of wearable
`
`devices and the collection and analysis of data relating to an individual’s
`
`physiological state. For example, these include: (1) in 1995, serving as co-chair
`
`for the DARPA 1996 Workshop on Wearable Computing; (2) in 2006, giving the
`
`3
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`keynote address, titled “Web Based Tools for Collecting Activity Data and
`
`Changing Behavior Telehealth: Technology for Behavior Change; and (3)
`
`participating in the Health Care Unbound Personal Sensing Systems conference in
`
`2004, and the Health Care Unbound Mobile Clinical Trial Systems conference in
`
`2005, and World Health Congress Panel Wireless Health Care conference in 2007
`
`(among others).
`
`8.
`
`I have co-authored 14 publications on topics in the field of collecting
`
`and analyzing data relating to an individual’s physiological state, including field
`
`monitoring of ambulation, estimates of maximal aerobic power in running humans,
`
`wearable and implantable body sensor networks, the use of wireless monitoring
`
`sensors for bariatric post-operative fitness training, mobile medical monitoring,
`
`and the like.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on twenty U.S. patents in the field of wearable
`
`devices and/or sensor systems for monitoring user activity. These include the U.S.
`
`Patent and Titles that are listed below:
`
`•
`
`8,214,007 – Body worn physiological sensor device having a
`
`disposable electrode module;
`
`•
`
`
`7,962,312 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`4
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`•
`
`7,937,121 – Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`8,264,328 – Sensor device with persistent low power beacon;
`
`7,768,415 – Sensor device with persistent low power beacon;
`
`7,617,071 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`7,466,979 – Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`7,428,472 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`7,428,471 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`7,200,517 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`7,187,924 – Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`6,898,550 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`6,536,139 – Detachable foot mount for electronic device;
`
`6,493,652 – Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot;
`
`6,357,147 – Detachable foot mount for electronic device;
`
`6,336,365 – Low-cost accelerometer;
`
`5
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`•
`
`6,298,314 – Detecting the starting and stopping of movement of a
`
`person on foot;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6,122,340 – Detachable foot mount for electronic device;
`
`6,052,654 – Measuring foot contact time and foot loft time of a person
`
`in locomotion;
`
`•
`
`6,018,705 – Measuring foot contact time and foot loft time of a person
`
`in locomotion.
`
`C. Compensation
`I am being compensated at a rate of $400 per hour for my study and
`
`10.
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`Information Considered
`D.
`11. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in the Petition’s List of Evidence and Exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions—including
`
`documents that may not have been provided to me yet.
`
`13. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`14.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’212 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`15. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’212 Patent are obvious from the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”). My understanding of the
`
`“obvious” standard is set forth below.
`
`A. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`21.
`
`been obvious to a PHOSITA in the field of the invention at the time the invention
`
`was made.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute as follows: “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a [PHOSITA] to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not
`
`be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`(pre-AIA).
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the ’212 Patent would have been
`
`9
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`considered obvious as of October 28, 1998, the priority date of the ’212 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• The knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and
`
`• Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`25.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a PHOSITA as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`26.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`10
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`27.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that if a PHOSITA can implement a predictable
`
`variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I understand that for
`
`similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
`
`PHOSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using that technique to improve the other device would have been obvious unless
`
`its actual application yields unexpected results or challenges in implementation.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a PHOSITA would employ.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a PHOSITA. I understand that all these issues may be considered to
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`31.
`
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`12
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where the Court rejected the previous
`
`requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements
`
`of prior art for purposes of an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding
`
`obviousness. It is my understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that
`
`would have been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why
`
`references would have been combined.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a PHOSITA attempting to solve a problem will not
`
`be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. I
`
`understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by common sense are
`
`important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items
`
`may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being described in a
`
`reference, that if something can be done once, it is obvious to do it multiple times,
`
`and in many cases a PHOSITA will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art considered can be directed
`
`to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor as of the priority date of
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`the ’212 Patent and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a PHOSITA is also a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`35.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`14
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a PHOSITA has
`
`good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this leads
`
`to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was
`
`“obvious to try” might show that it was obvious. The fact that a particular
`
`combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the
`
`combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was “obvious to try” (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been instructed that the claims of a patent are to be reviewed
`36.
`
`from the point of view of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`most closely related to the subject matter of the patent at the time of the filing of
`
`the patent. Based on my experience as a database system researcher, educator, and
`
`designer in 1998 , and the information I have reviewed for purposes of this matter,
`
`I believe a PHOSITA in the field of the ’212 Patent would have been a person with
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`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 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.
`
`B. Construction of Terms Used in the ’212 Patent Claims
`
`37.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of
`
`the patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`38.
`
`I also understand that where a patent applicant provides an explicit
`
`definition of a claim term in the specification, that definition may control the
`
`interpretation of that term in the claim.
`
`39.
`
`I also understand that if no explicit definition is given to a term in the
`
`patent specification, the claim terms must be evaluated using the ordinary meaning
`
`of the words being used in those claims, evaluated from the perspective of a
`
`PHOSITA.
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`40.
`
`I understand that in the corresponding district court litigation, Patent
`
`Owner has proposed certain claim constructions under the district court’s Phillips
`
`claim construction standard for several claim limitations. EX1011; EX1012.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner proposed construing “step counter” to
`
`mean “a device that collects data to generate a step count” in the corresponding
`
`district court litigation. EX1011 at 2.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner proposed construing “stride rate” to
`
`mean “number of steps over a time period.” Id. at 4. I understand Patent Owner
`
`proposed construing “from a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of
`
`corresponding stride rates” to mean “from a range of stride lengths that correspond
`
`to stride rates, the correspondence generated from two or more calibrations.” Id. at
`
`6.
`
`43.
`
`I further understand that Patent Owner originally proposed construing
`
`“a plurality of calibrations that each calculate a stride length as a function of a
`
`known stride rate” to mean “two or more calibrations that each generate a
`
`correspondence between stride rate and stride length.” EX1012 at 2. I understand
`
`Patent Owner originally proposed construing “a range of stride lengths calculated
`
`from a range of corresponding stride rates calculated from a plurality of calibration
`
`17
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`samples” to mean “a range of stride lengths that correspond to stride rates, the
`
`correspondence generated from two or more calibrations.” Id. at 2. I understand
`
`that these terms ultimately were not offered for construction in the parties’ joint
`
`claim construction chart. EX1011.
`
`44. For the purposes of my opinion presented herein, I will accept Patent
`
`Owner’s constructions as the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms.
`
`C. Brief Description of the References Relied Upon
`
`Priority Date of the ’212 Patent
`1.
`45. The ’212 Patent was filed on Jan. 4, 2001, as U.S. Application No.
`
`09/756,647, and claimed priority as a continuation application to U.S. Application
`
`No. 09/181,738, filed on October 28, 1998, now issued as Patent No. 6,175,608
`
`(“the ’608 Patent”). I have assumed October 28, 1998 to be the priority date for
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding. I have used this priority date to
`
`underscore my analysis as to what a PHOSITA at the time would have known and
`
`understood about the ’212 Patent, its claims, and the prior art known at the time.
`
`Jimenez
`2.
`Jimenez relates generally to “an apparatus for testing the physical
`
`46.
`
`condition of a subject in response to signals indicative of heart activity of the
`
`
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`subject and of the distance traversed by a limb of the subject during a timed testing
`
`period to provide a fitness indication of the cardiovascular system of the subject
`
`and/or parametric data related to exercise.” See EX1002 at 1:8-14.
`
`47.
`
`Jimenez discusses known exercise monitoring devices in its
`
`Background of the Invention. See EX1002 at 1:13-244. Jimenez discloses two
`
`types of devices that were known at the time: those that monitored heart rate, and
`
`those that monitored distance traveled. See EX1002 at 2:7-11. Jimenez sought to
`
`combine both functionalities into a single device that was capable of monitoring
`
`both heart rate and distance traveled. See id. at 1:38-44.
`
`48.
`
`Jimenez therefore discloses an exercise monitoring device having a
`
`strap, a step counter joined to the strap, a heart rate monitor joined to the strap, and
`
`a data processor to calculate distance using the number of steps multiplied by a
`
`single, constant stride length over a period of time.
`
`Levi
`3.
`49. Levi relates to a dead reckoning navigational system using
`
`accelerometer to measure foot impacts. EX1003 at Title. According to Levi,
`
`“[t]he present invention analyzes the frequency of a user's footsteps to aid in the
`
`detection of future footsteps, and further to aid in determining the size of footsteps
`
`19
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`taken by the user.” Id. at 2:57-60. According to an embodiment “Use of
`
`Frequency to Detect Steps and Determine Step Size,” “[t]he present invention for a
`
`ground speed/distance sensor is an improvement over a common hiker’s
`
`pedometer.” Id. at 2:63-66. The frequency of footsteps is equivalent to the stride
`
`rate in the ’212 Patent.
`
`50. According to Levi, “[e]xisting electronic pedometer designs use a
`
`spring-loaded mechanical pendulum to sense walking motions of the user. The
`
`pendulum operates a simple switch so that the up-down motion of the pendulum
`
`may be counted by the unit's electronics.” Id. at 2:67-3:4. According to Levi,
`
`these known pedometers employ a “scale factor that is proportional to the user’s
`
`stride length [that] is applied to the count. The assumption is that each count
`
`represents one step, however due to the pendulum dynamics extra bounces can
`
`occur. Sensitivity and bouncing depends on the spring rate and the pendulous
`
`mass.” Id. at 3:4-9. “Multiplying step counts by the scale factor yields a measure
`
`of distance.” Id. at 3:9-10. According to Levi, “[p]rior-art pedometers require
`
`manual calibration, are unreliable, and cannot be interfaced to a computer.” Id. at
`
`3:10-12.
`
`51.
`
`
`In an attempt to solve these deficiencies, Levi teaches the use of the
`20
`
`
`200659.00004/106095394v.1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas Blackadar
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212
`
`frequency of steps to determine step size, and to calculate the distance traveled.
`
`Levi uses equations similar to those employed by others (i.e. EX1015). See
`
`generally EX1003 at 6:7-43.
`
`52. According to Levi, “[l]ab experiments were conducted using the
`
`accelerometer footstep sensor of the present invention on a treadmill. FIG. 1 shows
`
`the acceleration data resulting from walking at a speed of 3.3 mph on the
`
`treadmill.” Id. at 3:37-40. “This data indicates that simple pulse counting is
`
`unreliable for counting the acceleration peaks that correspond to footsteps. The
`
`character of the data changes substantially as speed changes. Simple pulse
`
`counting is the method used by existing pedometers.” Id. at 3:40-44. As an expert
`
`in the field of pedometers pulse counting provides errors in step detection. To
`
`develop an accurate step detection circuit one must fully process the information.
`
`53. Levi “combats problems associated with simple pulse counting by
`
`extracting the fundamental frequency of a hiker’s footsteps, using digital signal
`
`processing techniques. More complex peak counting algorithms are also feasible.”
`
`Id. at 3:45-49.
`
`54. According to Levi