`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`TOMTOM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`_______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, PH.D., IN SUPPORT
`OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Thomas Blackadar (“Blackadar
`
`Declaration,” Ex. 1002) on the patentability of claims 1-8 of the ‘212 patent and
`
`TomTom, Inc.’s (“Petitioner” or “TomTom”) Petition that relies on the Blackadar
`
`Declaration. I have also reviewed the deposition transcript of Mr. Blackadar from June
`
`27, 2018 (Ex. 1022).
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have also reviewed U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,367,752 to Jimenez, et al. (“Jimenez,” Ex. 1002); U.S. Patent No. 5,583,776 to Levi
`
`et al. (“Levi,” Ex. 1003); and U.S. Patent No. 6,145,389 to Ebeling et al. (“Ebeling,”
`
`Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed portions of the file history of the ‘212 patent (Ex.
`
`1009), and its parent, U.S. Patent No. 6,175,608 (Ex. 1010) 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
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`and testing of transmitters and receivers for such telecommunication; radio navigation;
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`mathematical analyses and solutions to various aspects of telecommunications of 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2 for a list of my
`
`published works, selected conferences, and academic presentations.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`22.
`
`I am not an attorney and therefore I offer no opinions on the law. I have
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Mr. Blackadar, 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 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. 1002, ¶36.
`
`26.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Blackadar’s definition of a PHOSITA in this case. I
`
`note that although the qualifications Mr. Blackadar 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 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.
`
`28. The Board has asked the parties to develop the record for the correct
`
`construction for the term “calibration” as it occurs in the claims of the ‘212 Patent. Based
`
`on my review of the patent and relevant portions of the prosecution history, and my
`
`expertise in the field, it is my opinion that “calibration” should be construed as a
`
`“process which correlates a particular user’s stride rate and stride length.”
`
`29. The language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history
`
`of the ‘212 Patent all support the proper interpretation of “calibration.” For example,
`
`dependent claims 3 and 4 of the ‘212 Patent include the requirement that the pedometer
`
`be “recalibrated.” Such recalibration would be beneficial to capture fitness gains from a
`
`particular user. Recalibration for fitness gains would not make sense if “calibration”
`
`were not limited to a particular user because it would not capture that user’s fitness
`
`gains. Further, the examples in the ‘212 specification all relate to ways in which a
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`particular user can calibrate the device to their specific stride length and stride rate.
`
`Indeed, personalized calibration appears to be a distinction the applicants for the ‘212
`
`Patent (and its parent patent) emphasized over prior art systems.
`
`VI. THE ’212 PATENT
`
`30. 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).
`
`31. 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32. 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, calculated
`
`from a range of stride rates (i.e., number of strides over some period of time), such as in
`
`walking and running.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34. 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.
`
`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)).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. NON-OBVIOUSNESS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`35. As I will explain below, I disagree with Mr. Blackadar’s opinions and
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that the challenged claims are obvious over Jimenez, Levi, and
`
`skill in the art or obvious over Jimenez, Ebeling, and skill in the art.
`
`A. Ground 1
`
`36.
`
`I have reviewed Blackbird’s Response to the Petition’s challenges based
`
`on Jimenez, Levi, and skill in the art, and understand that Blackbird’s Response is being
`
`filed concurrently with this Declaration. I agree with Blackbird’s Response to the
`
`Petition’s challenges based on Jimenez, Levi, and skill in the art. Petitioner’s asserted
`
`references lack disclosures of several of the claimed elements in the ‘212 Patent.
`
`Additionally, one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Jimenez
`
`with Levi.
`
`37.
`
`I note that the Levi reference is cited on the face of the ‘212 Patent, and I
`
`therefore understand that the patent examiner was made aware of this reference but
`
`allowed the ‘212 Patent to issue anyway.
`
`38. Levi is a very different reference from the ‘212 Patent or Jimenez. Levi
`
`proposes a solution to a totally different problem: augmenting GPS position-
`
`determination with ded reckoning (ded is short for deduced, and has nothing to do with
`
`“dead” as the Levi patent keeps referring to it). This is stated explicitly at 1:8-12 where
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`the field of the Levi invention is stated as “The present invention relates generally to
`
`navigational systems and, in particular, to electronic, portable navigational systems
`
`that use radionavigational data and dead reckoning for foot navigation.”
`
`39. This statement from the Background of the Invention makes clear that Levi
`
`has nothing to do with improving the known inaccuracies of legacy pedometers, which
`
`is what the ‘212 Patent is about. Instead, the different problem that the Levi reference
`
`addresses is: “Generally these (legacy) systems have been designed for automobiles or
`
`trucks with the speed sensor output being derived from rotation of the road wheels.”
`
`(1:43-45). Levi further states under “Summary of the invention” that: “The present
`
`invention discloses incorporation of DR functions with GPS position information, thus
`
`providing the individual foot traveler with an autonomous navigation capability. The
`
`present invention discloses a microcomputer-assisted position finding system that
`
`integrates GPS data, DR sensors, and digital maps into a low-cost, self-contained
`
`navigation instrument.” (1:60-67). This is the classic problem faced by all vehicles on
`
`the road with a GPS Navigator, which is what to do when there is no GPS signal
`
`available (e.g. in a garage or under a bridge).
`
`40. There is nothing in the Levi patent that addresses the main point of the ‘212
`
`Patent, which is: “A pedometer having improved accuracy by calculating actual stride
`
`lengths.” (‘212 Patent, Abstract). As such, Levi addresses a different problem and fails
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 16 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`to address the problem (and solution) of the ‘212 Patent. It can be argued that Levi
`
`teaches away from the ‘212 patent because Levi does not even acknowledge the problem
`
`of the ‘212 patent, let alone the solution of the ‘212 patent.
`
`41. The Jimenez reference is also cited on the face of the ‘212 Patent, and it is
`
`therefore my understanding that the ‘212 Patent was allowed over Jimenez, as well.
`
`42. The Jimenez Abstract states that it is an “apparatus for testing physical
`
`condition of a subject,” and so does the “Technical Field” (1:6-14). This is a broad
`
`description and does not specifically address the same problems addressed by the ‘212
`
`Patent.
`
`43. For Ground 1, the Petition and Mr. Blackadar point to Jimenez for most of
`
`the claim limitations of the ‘212 Patent. However, Jimenez fails to disclose several
`
`elements of the independent claims of the ‘212 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`Independent claim 6 of the ‘212 Patent contains limitations that the claimed
`
`pedometer include “a transmitter in communication with the step counter,” and “a
`
`receiver mountable on a user body portion to receive the step count signal transmitted
`
`from the transmitter.” (‘212 Patent, claim 6). Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar rely on
`
`Jimenez to disclose the “transmitter” and “receiver” in claim 6. (Pet. at 46-47). But
`
`Jimenez does not include a “transmitter” or “receiver” as claimed in the ‘212 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45. For the “transmitter” and “receiver” elements of claim 6, Petitioner and Mr.
`
`Blackadar identify two of the circuit diagrams in the patent. (Id.). For the specific
`
`component that Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar claim matches up to the “transmitter”
`
`element in claim 6, Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar identify electrical components of the
`
`illustrated circuits and contend that “‘one shot 146’ is a ‘transmitter in communication
`
`with the step counter[.]’” (Pet. at 47). “One shot 146” is one component of the circuit
`
`diagram in Figure 10 of Jimenez, shown in a red box below:
`
`(Jimenez Fig. 10, annotated to show element 146). A “one shot” is a type of monostable
`
`multivibrator that is an electrical component used, in this context, to normalize the
`
`
`
`voltage wave input from a sensor. It is not a transmitter.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 18 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46. For the “receiver” element of claim 6, Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar
`
`identify the “microcomputer 301” in Jimenez. (Pet. at 47) (shown in a red box below):
`
`
`
`(Jimenez Fig. 11A, annotated to show element 301).
`
`47.
`
`I note that Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar also identify this “microcomputer”
`
`as the element in Jimenez that corresponds to the “data processor” that is present in
`
`every independent claim of the ‘212 Patent. (Pet. at 24, 53). This “microcomputer” is
`
`neither a “receiver” or a “processor” as those terms are used in the claims of the ‘212
`
`Patent. But, even if one assumes that this “microcomputer” could read on the
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 19 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`“processor” limitations in the ‘212 Patent, then it cannot also be the separate “receiver”
`
`element in claim 6.
`
`48.
`
`It is also my opinion that Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar fail to establish that
`
`the Levi-Jimenez-knowledge-in-the-art combination teaches that “stride length is
`
`determined with reference to a plurality of calibrations that each calculate a stride length
`
`as a function of a known stride rate” (as in ‘212 Claim 2, limitation (e)) or that the
`
`apparatus is “programmed to derive the stride length from a range of stride lengths
`
`calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates calculated from a plurality of
`
`calibration samples” (as in ‘212 Claim 5, limitation (e)). Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar
`
`point only to the Levi reference to show these limitations, but their arguments are based
`
`on a misunderstanding of Levi.
`
`49. The Levi reference describes a calibration process, and provides Figure 9
`
`to illustrate it. Levi states that “FIG 9 illustrates the calibration algorithm of the
`
`presently preferred embodiment” (Levi, 2:44-45) (emphasis added)), and further
`
`describes the calibration process at Col. 9:53 through Col. 10:36. The description of the
`
`Levi calibration process discloses a single calibration procedure that results in a single
`
`new step size parameter. Specifically, the dead reckoning system calibration is
`
`performed by the user marking their current position on a map, walking to a destination
`
`point, and marking that ending point on the (digital) map. (See Levi, 9:59-10:30). Based
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 20 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`on that simple exercise, the Levi navigational system calculates a “[n]ew step size” (id.
`
`at 10:16-17) and a new compass offset (id. at 10:28).
`
`50. Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar argue that “Levi discloses and teaches an
`
`algorithm wherein the stride length is determined with reference to a plurality of
`
`calibrations that each calculate a stride length as a function of a known stride rate.” (Pet
`
`at 35).This is based on an apparent misunderstanding of Levi. Specifically, they rely on
`
`Figure 5 of Levi in an attempt to show that the reference “performs a plurality of
`
`calibrations relating step size (stride length) to step frequency (stride rate).” (Pet. at 28,
`
`36). But this is not what Figure 5, or any of the corresponding disclosure in Levi,
`
`actually shows.
`
`51. Levi is clear that “FIG. 5 illustrates the relationship between frequency of
`
`a user’s step and step size.” (Levi, 2:34-35). According to Levi, Figure 5 is an
`
`illustration of the relationship discovered through “[l]ab experiments … conducted
`
`using the accelerometer footstep sensor of the present invention on a treadmill” (id. at
`
`3:37-38) in which “[a]pplicants have discovered that the fundamental frequency [of a
`
`user’s steps] is indeed proportional to a user’s speed.” (Id. at 3:63-65).
`
`52. Figure 5 in Levi shows this relationship as a curve, with slope “m,” the
`
`ends of which show that “as the number of steps increases from 1.7 to 2.1 steps per
`
`second, for example, the step size increases from 0.72 meters (2.36 feet) to 0.90 meters
`
`(2.95 feet).” (Id. at 6:10-13).
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 21 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner’s and Mr. Blackadar’s suggestion that the three
`
`points on the graph in Figure 5 correspond to three calibration samples from a single
`
`test subject. Those listed stride rates/step sizes of 1.7 steps per second/0.72 meters and
`
`2.1 steps per second/2.1 meters are simply the endpoints of a graph and do not
`
`correspond to a particular user’s calibration.
`
`54. Levi does describe a calibration curve in Figure 1, not Figure 5. Levi
`
`describes Figure 1 as a “calibration curve of speed versus fundamental frequency for
`
`two different users.” (Id. at 2:25-26). Levi explains that the two curves, plotted for “a
`
`person with a relatively short stride, and . . . a person with a longer stride . . . corresponds
`
`to step size increasing with increasing speed” (Id. at 4:4-9). I understand Figure 1 in
`
`Levi to show experimental data that was used to construct a step-size-step-frequency
`
`model, used elsewhere in Levi.
`
`55. Petitioner and Mr. Blackadar rely heavily on one passage in Levi to suggest
`
`that Figure 5 corresponds to a series of calibrations for a particular user. At column 6,
`
`lines 23-25, Levi states that “[t]he configuration [file] is particular to the individual
`
`person using the system and is generated during the calibration process.” (See also Pet
`
`at 35-36). I understand this passage as referring to the “calibration process,” which is
`
`described in Levi Figure 9 and corresponding disclosures in columns 9 and 10. The
`
`relevant output of that calibration process described in Levi is a single “new step size”
`
`that is not based on a plurality of calibrations. (Levi 10:14, Figure 9 step 906).
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2001
`Page 22 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56. The “configuration file” referenced here contains “default values.” My
`
`understanding, reading Levi in full, is that the Levi system has a number of step-size-
`
`to-step-frequency curves (like the one depicted in Figure 5), that correspond to different
`
`default step sizes. Levi discloses that a user performs the single “calibration process”
`
`disclosed in Figure 9 to generate a “new step size,” which is used to match the user to
`
`one of the predetermined step-size-to-step-frequency curves with predetermined slope
`
`“m.”
`
`57. This is fundamentally different than the process claimed in the ‘212 Patent.
`
`The “calibration” in the ‘212 Patent is different from generic experimentation that might
`
`result in a graph like Figure 5 in Levi. The “calibration” in the claims of the ‘212 Patent
`
`refers to determining the correlation between
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
