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