Petitioner
`Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2018-00289 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,872,646)1
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Calmann J. Clements
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`January 24, 2019
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-01383, has been joined as a
`party to this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 1 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2018-00289 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,872,646)1
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Calmann J. Clements
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`January 24, 2019
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-01383, has been joined as a
`party to this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 1 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Argument
`
`The prior art renders each and every element of the
`challenged claims obvious.
`
`The term glitch, properly construed, is taught by the
`McMahan reference.
`
`A POSITA would have combined the teachings of
`McMahan with those of Pasolini and Goldman.
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 2 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Issue #1:
`The prior art renders each and every element of the
`challenged claims obvious.
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 3 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Pasolini and Goldman teach receiving motion data from
`a motion sensor
`
`Claim 1[a]:
`receiving motion data from a motion
`sensor in a device, the motion sensor
`sensing motion along three axes
`
`APPL-1003, Fig. 1; Petition at 29.
`
`APPL-1003, 3:17-20; Petition at 29.
`
`APPL-1004, p 1; Petition at 29.
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 4 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`McMahan teaches removing glitches
`
`Claim 1[b]:
`verifying whether the motion data
`includes one or more glitches and
`removing the one or more glitches from
`the motion data
`
`APPL-1005, 4:26-30; Petition at 30.
`
`APPL-1005, 4:35-38; Petition at 31.
`
`APPL-1005, 5:46-48; Petition at 31.
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); Petition at 31.
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 5 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Pasolini, Goldman, and Mizell teach determining an idle
`sample value for a dominant axis
`
`Claim 1[c]:
`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
`
`APPL-1004, p. 2; Petition at 32-33.
`
`APPL-1003, 5:41-48; Petition at 33-34.
`
`APPL-1007, p. 1; Petition at 34-35.
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 6 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Pasolini and Goldman teach registering a motion of the
`device
`
`Claim 1[d]:
`registering a motion of the device based on the motion data from the motion
`sensor
`
`APPL-1004, p. 1; Petition at 37.
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 7 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Pasolini and Goldman teach determining whether the
`motion caused a change in the dominant axis
`
`Claim 1[e]:
`determining whether the motion caused a change in the dominant axis
`
`APPL-1003, 5:31-41; Petition at 38.
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 8 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Pasolini and Goldman teach waking the device
`
`Claim 1[f]:
`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.
`
`APPL-1003, 5:31-41; Petition at 39.
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 9 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Issue #2:
`The term glitch, properly construed, is taught by the
`McMahan reference.
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 10 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`’646 Patent, Claim 1
`’646 Patent, 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 ofthe
`
`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 indi-
`
`cates 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 11 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`The specification describes “glitch” as a datum outside
`an acceptable range.
`
`APPL-1001, 6:35-40; Petition at 7.
`
`APPL-1001, 3:13-27; Petition at 8.
`
`Petition at 7-8.
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 12 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Patent Owner seeks to limit glitches to only motion
`that does not warrant waking the device
`Patent Owner describes the claimed “glitch” as follows:
`
`Patent Owner Response at 6.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 7.
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 13 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Glitches include extremely unlikely, malfunctioning,
`and abnormal data
`
`APPL-1001, 6:35-40; Petition at 7.
`
`APPL-1001, 5:19-23; Reply at 7.
`
`APPL-1001, 3:33-37; Reply at 8.
`
`APPL-1001, 6:56-65; Reply at 7-8.
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 14 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Glitches are treated differently than jostles and bumps.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 6.
`
`APPL-1001, 4:61-5:2; Reply at 8-9.
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 3; Reply at 7.
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 15 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Glitches are removed/discarded
`
`APPL-1001, 5:19-23; Reply at 8.
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 6; Reply at 9.
`
`APPL-1001, 6:56-65; Reply at 7-8.
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 16 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Proper construction of “glitch”
`
`Claim
`
`Specification
`
`APPL-1001, 6:35-40; Reply at 6.
`
`Construction
`
`APPL-1001, 5:19-23; Reply at 8.
`
`Petition at 7-8.
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 17 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`McMahan teaches verifying and removing a glitch
`
`APPL-1005, 4:26-30; Petition at 30.
`
`Petition at 31.
`
`APPL-1005, 4:24-44; Petition at 31; Reply at 11.
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 18 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Issue #3:
`A POSITA would have combined the teachings of
`McMahan with those of Pasolini and Goldman.
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 19 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined McMahan with
`Pasolini and Goldman
`
`APPL-1010 at ¶82; Petition at 25
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 20 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined McMahan with
`Pasolini and Goldman
`• Pasolini and Goldman uses accelerometers to detect motion:
`
`APPL-1003, 3:17-20; Petition at 29.
`
`APPL-1004, p 1; Petition at 29.
`
`• McMahan teaches a known
`technique to remove data glitches
`from accelerometer data:
`
`Petition at 31.
`21
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 21 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined McMahan with
`Pasolini and Goldman
`
`• POSITAs desired removing signals errors because removing signal errors
`from accelerometer data would provide more reliable accelerometer data:
`
`• McMahan teaches that removing glitches would be a more “accurate reflection
`of the stimulus that the sensor is designed to monitor”:
`
`APPL-1010, ¶82; Petition at 26
`
`APPL-1010, ¶82; APPL-1005, 4:29-30;
`Petition at 26
`
`22
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 22 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`McMahan is broadly applicable to accelerometers and
`other sensors
`Patent Owner characterizes McMahan’s teachings as a “sensor-specific technique”
`and argues that McMahan is not applicable to Pasolini.
`Response at 18-20.
`
`However, McMahan is not “sensor-specific”:
`
`APPL-1005, 3:28-31; Reply at 19.
`
`APPL-1005, 3:37-40; Reply at 19.
`
`23
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 23 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`The references relied upon in the Petition render
`each of the claims obvious.
`
`The term glitch, properly construed, is taught by
`McMahan.
`
`The McMahan reference is properly combinable with
`Pasolini and Goldman.
`
`24
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 24 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2018-00289 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,872,646)1
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Calmann J. Clements
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`January 24, 2019
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-01383, has been joined as a
`party to this proceeding.
`
`25
`
`IPR2018-00289
`APPL-1017 / Page 25 of 25
`Apple v. Uniloc
`
`
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
