`
`Vv.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`Case IPR2018-00289
`(Patent 8,872,646)
`
`Hearing Before Jennifer S. Bisk,
`Charles J. Boudreau, and
`Garth D. Baer
`
`January 24, 2018
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`1. A method comprising:
`receiving motion data from a motion sensor in a device, the motion
`sensor sensing motion along three axes;
`verifying whether the motion data includes one or more glitches and
`removing the one or more glitches from the motion data;
`determining an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the device,
`the dominant axis defined as the axis with a largest effect from
`gravity among the three axes, the idle sample value comprising an
`average of accelerations over a sample period along the dominant
`axis recorded when the device goes to idle mode after a period of
`inactivity;
`registering a motion of the device based on the motion data from the
`motion sensor;
`determining whether the motion caused a change in the dominant
`axis; and
`waking up the device when the motion of the device indicates the
`change in the dominant axis of the device, the dominant axis being
`the axis with the largest effect from gravity among the three axes.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 13
`
`13. A mobile device comprising:
`a motion sensor to sense motion along three axes and generate motion
`data;
`a glitch corrector to determine whether the motion data includes one or
`more glitches and removing the one or more glitches from the motion
`data;
`a dominant axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a dominant
`axis of the mobile device based on the motion data, the dominant axis
`defined as an axis with a largest effect from gravity among three axes,
`and the idle sample value comprising an average of accelerations over
`a sample period along the dominant axis recorded when the device
`goes to idle mode after a period of inactivity;
`a computation logic to determine whether the motion caused a change in
`the dominant axis; and
`a power logic to wake up the device when the motion of the device
`indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device, the dominant
`axis being the axis with the largest effect from gravity among the
`three axes.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 20
`
`20. A system to wake up a mobile device comprising:
`a motion sensor to detect motion along three axes and
`generation motion data;
`a glitch corrector to determine whether the motion
`data includes one or more glitches and remove the
`one or more glitches from the motion data;
`a dominant axis logic to determine an idle sample
`value, comprising an average of accelerations over a
`sample period along a dominant axis, the dominant
`axis defined as an axis with a largest effect of
`gravity among the three axes; and
`a power logic to move the device from the inactive
`state to an active state upon detection of a change in
`the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the
`largest effect of gravity.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`Petitioner’s erroneous construction for “glitches” term:
`“a ‘glitch’ includes a datum that is outside of an
`acceptable range.”
`
`Patent Owner’s construction for “glitches” term:
`“motion data within the operational range of the
`motion sensor yet deemed to not fit the signature of
`human motion indicative of someone preparing to
`interface with a device.”
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`The challenged claims recite the “glitches” term in the
`following contexts:
`
`“receiving motion data from a motion sensor in a
`device, the motion sensor sensing motion along
`three axes; [and] verifying whether the motion data
`includes one or more glitches and removing the one
`or more glitches from the motion data”(claim 1)
`
`“a motion sensor to sense motion along three axes and
`generate motion data; [and] a glitch corrector to
`determine whether the motion data includes one or
`more glitches and remove/removing the one or more
`glitches from the motion data” (claims 13 and 20)
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
` The explicit claim language confirms the
`“glitches” must be part of “the motion data”
`defined in part in the antecedent “receiving” step
`(of claim 1) in terms of “sensing motion along
`three axes.”
`
` Only Patent Owner has proposed a construction
`that correctly reflects the requirement, recited in
`the claim language itself, that a “glitch” is
`measured motion data.
`
`Petitioner’s construction is untethered to the
`“motion data” requirement at least in that it is
`intended to encompass impossible and erroneous
`distortions that do not reflect motion and,
`instead, are outside the operational range of the
`sensor (i.e., not motion data).
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`A “glitch” as measured motion data within the operational range of
`the motion sensor, yet it does not fit the signature of human
`motion indicative of someone preparing to interface with a device:
`
`(’646 Patent,
`1:59−63.)
`
`(’646 Patent,
`3:23−27.)
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`(’646 Patent, 2:35−51.)
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`“rea”motionandnotamersjostlorbump.Thedeviceme
`
`At block 330, the process determines if the movementis a
`
`
`
`
`move,
`for example, as a result ofa littlejostle ofa desk or table
`on which the device 1s laying, a heavy step nearby, or some-
`thing else that creates a very small motion, but which does not
`warrant waking up the device. In contrast, the device may
`move as aresult of being picked up by a userintending to use
`the device. In this case, the movement is a “real” motion
`which warrants awakening the device.
`
`('646 Patent, 4:61-5:2.)
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`The following description also confirms “glitch”
`does not refer to an impossible value outside
`the operational range of a sensor:
`
`(6:61−62.)
`
`In this example, multiplemotion data measurements are needed to
`indicate what “may” (and hence may not) be a problem.
`If a glitch, instead, refers to an impossiblevalue outside the
`operational range of the sensor, then there would be no need for
`multiplemotion data points to make only a presumptive
`determination that there “may” be a problem with the accelerometer.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`Petitioner’s construction is inconsistent in
`several respects with the only passage it cites:
`
`(6:36−40.)
`
`Petitioner impermissibly seeks to untether its construction from the
`descriptive statement (in the sole passage cited in the Petition) that a
`glitch “indicates a motion” and that it is the indicated motion
`itself“that is outside of an acceptable range” (i.e., a range of motion).
`Petitioner fails to explain how a description expressly directed to
`“one embodiment” is somehow lexicographic in nature and
`unambiguously defines all embodiments.
`The Petition offers no argument, evidence, or explanation for why
`the cited passage supports construing a “glitch” in terms of what it
`purportedly “includes”(an unnecessarily vague and unreasonably
`broadening construction), as opposed to what it is.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`A review of the cross-examination transcript of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Paradiso, reveals that he
`applied an erroneous understanding for “glitch”
`that is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence:
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner erroneously construed “glitches” term
`
`Patent Owner’s construction for “glitches” term:
`“motion data within the operational range of the motion
`sensor yet deemed to not fit the signature of human
`motion indicative of someone preparing to interface
`with a device.”
`
` Only Patent Owner’s construction ties a “glitch” to certain
`motion data (i.e., within the operational range of the motion
`sensor yet deemed to not fit the signature of human motion
`indicative of someone preparing to interface with a device), as
`required by full context of the claim language and as
`consistently reflected in the intrinsic evidence.
`Petitioner seeks through its construction to untether the “glitch”
`term from its thematic and claimed description—including in
`the sole passage cited in the Petition—that a “glitch” indicates a
`motion. Rather, Petitioner seeks through its construction to
`unreasonably broaden “glitch” to encompass impossible values
`which do not qualify as motion data because they are erroneous
`distortions outside the operational range of the sensor.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 5−8; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 5−10.
`
`14
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`1. The Petition fails to prove McMahan’s “error” renders
`obvious “determine/verifying whether the motion
`data includes one or more glitches” and “remov[ing]
`the one or more glitches from the motion data”
`
` McMahan defines its “error” as an impossiblevalue
`that is not indicative of motion because it is outside
`what the sensor is designed to monitor:
`
`(Ex. 1005,
`4:26−30.)
`
`The Petition makes no attempt to prove that
`McMahan’s “error” satisfies the definitive claim
`language applicable to the recited “motion data” and
`hence also applicable to the “glitch” term.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`15
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`2. The Petition fails to prove McMahan’s “modify”
`description maps onto the claimed “remov[ing] the
`one or more glitches from the motion data”
`
` The Petition also fails to address at least the requirements
`that (1) the “motion data” must exist as a collective whole
`prior to the “remov[ing],” (2) the “one or more glitches” (if
`any) are each included as part of that “motion data,” and
`(3) certain “motion data” must remain (e.g., data
`determined/verified to not be a “glitch”) because “the one
`or more glitches” are removed from “the motion data.”
` McMahan’s “modify” block 308 refers to processing an
`erroneous output (i.e., an “error”) which, due to its
`impossible value, is never included as part of anything that
`can be considered motion data.
` At least because, by intended design, McMahan’s “error” is
`never included as part of the motion data, McMahan fails to
`disclose removing such an “error” from motion data.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`16
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`3. McMahan teaches away from inclusion of an
`“error” within the motion data and, by extension,
`also teaches away from subsequent removal of
`that “error” from motion data.
`
`The “error” in McMahan, by intended design, is not passed
`on and never included as part of anything that can be
`considered motion data. Hence, it cannot be removed from
`“the motion data” as claimed.
`For example, McMahan states the following (in a passage
`connecting the disjointed portions Petitioner cites):
`(EX1005, 4:31−34.)
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`17
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`4. The Petition fails to provide a cognizable basis for why
`a person of ordinary skill the art (who is not defined in
`the Petition itself) would have been motivated to
`combine the cited portion of McMahan with the three
`other references identified in the Petition.
`
` The cited portion of McMahan teaches passing on a made-up
`(i.e., not reliable) value when an “error” occurs. This made-up
`value serves the express purpose of not allowing the “error”
`“to propagate to the electronic circuit 106” and thereby likely
`compromise the system “because the error may be magnified
`when relied on in further operations by electronic circuit.”
`(See, e.g., EX1005, 4:31−34; see also id. at 4:39-43.)
`The Petition fails to prove (or even attempt to argue) that the
`electronic-circuitry concerns detailed in McMahan are present
`in the other cited references, much less their proposed
`combination, such that those references are all compatible
`with and would have the same articulated benefits of this
`particular aspect of the McMahan design.
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`18
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`4. The Petition fails to provide a cognizable basis for why
`a person of ordinary skill the art (who is not defined in
`the Petition itself) would have been motivated to
`combine the cited portion of McMahan with the three
`other references identified in the Petition.
`
`Petitioner also fails to prove its allegation that combining the
`cited portion of McMahan “would have allowed the
`accelerometer of the Pasolini and Goldman combination to be
`a more ‘accurate reflection of the stimulus that the sensor is
`designed to monitor.’”
`The alleged accuracy enhancement described in the cited
`portion of McMahan is expressly “based on a sensor with two
`crystal oscillator beams.” (EX1005, 4:1−43.)The Petition offers
`no argument or evidence to conclude that this sensor-specific
`technique could be applied to the entirely different
`accelerometers of either Pasolini or Goldman, let alone to the
`so-called and merely hypothetical “accelerometer of the
`Pasolini and Goldman combination.”
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`19
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`
`4. The Petition fails to provide a cognizable basis for why
`a person of ordinary skill the art (who is not defined in
`the Petition itself) would have been motivated to
`combine the cited portion of McMahan with the three
`other references identified in the Petition.
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the cited teachings of McMahan in
`suggesting “McMahan’s technique would have been easily
`implementable using coding, as taught by Goldman.”
` The cited technique in McMahan requires “using the data from the
`good crystal, e.g., the crystal with the value within the normal
`operating range.” (EX1005, 4:17−19; see also 4:29−30.)That
`technique is not a solution implemented entirely in “coding,” but
`rather it is explicitly based on a specific sensor design.
` Petitioner’s declarant admitted during cross-examination that the
`so-called “coding” allegedly taught by Goldman is wholly unrelated to
`the McMahan technique. (EX2002 at 38:1−12.) Goldman admittedly is
`referenced merely for the (irrelevant) proposition that it teaches
`doing something else in software. (Id.)
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`20
`
`
`
`No proof of obviousness for “glitches” limitations
`(Cross-examination of Dr. Paradiso referenced on prior slide)
`
`(EX2002,
`at 38:1−12.)
`
`IPR2018-00289, Response (Paper 11) at pp. 9−18; IPR2018-01383, Prelim. Response (Paper 7) at pp. 11−19.
`
`21
`
`