Apple, Inc.
`
`v
`
`Uniloc 201 7 LLC
`
`Case IPR2018-00289
`
`(Patent 8,872,646)
`
`Hearing Before Jennifer S. Bisk,
`
`Charles J. Boudreau, and
`
`Garth D. Baer
`
`January 24, 2018
`
`
`
`v
`
`Uniloc 201 7 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
`
`
`
`At block 330, the rocess determines if the movement is a
`
`mic devicemay
`move, orexamp e, asaresu o a 1
`e JOS eofa desk ortable
`on which the device is 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 a result of being picked up by a user intending 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
`
`
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
