UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`PATENT 8,872,646
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS ....................................... 2
`
`A. Obviousness ............................................................................................ 2
`
`B. Priority Date ........................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.......................................................... 4
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................................... 5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OFTHE ‘646 PATENT .......................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 6
`
`A. “glitch” ................................................................................................... 7
`
`B. “A change in dominant axis” .................................................................. 7
`
`C. “dominant axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a dominant
`axis of the mobile device based on the motion data” ............................... 7
`
`D. “dominant axis logic … to compare a difference between a current
`sample value along the dominant axis determined based on the motion of
`the device and the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a
`threshold value” ...................................................................................... 8
`
`E. “computation logic to determine whether the motion caused a change in
`the dominant axis” .................................................................................. 8
`
`F. “power logic to wake up the device when the motion of the device
`indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device” ...........................10
`
`G. “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” ..............................................10
`
`Unified Patents v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2148
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page i
`
`
`
`

`

`H. “long average logic to calculate an average of accelerations over a sample
`period” ...................................................................................................10
`
`VI. PETITIONER’S CITED REFERENCES ....................................................12
`
`VII. VALIDITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................13
`
`A. Last Active State ....................................................................................13
`1. Pasolini ............................................................................................. 14
`2. Goldman ........................................................................................... 15
`3. McMahan.......................................................................................... 16
`4. Mizell ............................................................................................... 16
`5. Park 16
`
`B. Specific Combinations ...........................................................................17
`1. Park with Mizell, McMahan, Goldman, and/or Pasolini ................... 17
`2. Goldman with Park, Mizell, McMahan, and/or Pasolini .................... 19
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................20
`
`EASTTOM CV .....................................................................................................22
`
`A. Education ...............................................................................................22
`1. University Degrees ........................................................................... 22
`2. Industry Certifications ...................................................................... 23
`3. Hardware and Networking Related Certifications ............................. 23
`4. Operating System Related Certifications........................................... 23
`5. Programming and Web Development Related Certifications ............ 24
`6. Database Related Certifications ........................................................ 24
`7. Security and Forensics Related Certifications ................................... 24
`8. Software Certifications ..................................................................... 25
`9. Licenses ............................................................................................ 25
`
`B. Publications ...........................................................................................25
`1. Books 26
`2. Papers, presentations, & articles........................................................ 28
`3. Patents .............................................................................................. 30
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
` Standards and Certification Creation......................................................31
`
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`D. Professional Awards and Memberships .................................................32
`
`E. Speaking Engagements ..........................................................................33
`
`F. Litigation Support Experience ...............................................................37
`1. Testifying Experience ....................................................................... 44
`
`G. Professional Experience .........................................................................47
`
`H. Continuing Professional Education ........................................................51
`
`I. References to my work ..........................................................................53
`1. Media References ............................................................................. 53
`2. References to publications ................................................................ 54
`3. Universities using my books ............................................................. 62
`
`J. Training .................................................................................................64
`
`K. Technical Skills .....................................................................................65
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I, Chuck Easttom, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`1.
`My name is William Charles Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) and
`
`I
`
`have
`
`been
`
`retained
`
`by
`
`Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg
`
`S.A.
`
`(“Uniloc”
`
`or
`
`the
`
`“Patent
`
`
`
` Owner”)
`
`to provide my expert opinions regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,872,646
`
`(the
`
`‘646
`
`
`
` Patent). In particular, I have been asked to
`
`opine on
`
`whether
`
`a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time the inventions described inthe
`
`
`
` ‘646 Patent
`
`were conceived
`
`
`
`would have found
`
`
`
`all claims,
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5-11,
`
`13-18,
`
`and
`
`20
`
`(“Challenged
`
`Claims”)
`
`
`
`as
`
`unpatentable
`
`in
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cited
`
`references and arguments
`
`in
`
`the IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Petition
`
`and
`
`its
`
`exhibits,
`
`and
`
`my
`
`2.
`
`Based
`
`on
`
`my
`
`understanding of the relevant requirements of patent law, and my decades of
`
`experience
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field
`
`of
`
`computer
`
`science
`
`including
`
`cell
`
`phones
`
`and
`
`cell
`
`phone technology, it is my opinion that
`
`the
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`would
`
`
`not
`
`have
`
`been obvious in light
`
`of the proposed combinations.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting
`
`rate
`
`of
`
`$300
`
`
`per
`
`hour.
`
`I
`
`am
`
`also
`
`being
`
`reimbursed
`
`for
`
`expenses
`
`that
`
`I
`
`incur
`
`during the course of this work. Apart from that, I have no financial interest in
`
`Uniloc.
`
`My
`
`compensation
`
`is
`
`not
`
`contingent
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`results
`
`of
`
`my
`
`study
`
`or
`
`the substance of my opinions.
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`In my over 25 years of computer industry experience I have had
`
`extensive experience in communications systems, including cell phones,
`
`portable devices and related technology. I hold 42 industry certifications,
`
`which include (among others) networking certifications. I have authored 26
`
`computer science books, several of which deal with cell phone technology. I
`
`have been involved in cell phone forensics for over a decade, which includes
`
`a detailed technical understanding of cell phone technology including
`
`accelerometers, motion detection, and related topics. I am also the sole named
`
`inventor on thirteen patents.
`
`5.
`
`A more detailed description of my professional qualifications,
`
`including a list of publications, teaching, and professional activities, is
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANARDS USED
`
`
`
` IN MY ANALYSIS
`
`6.
`
`
`
`Although
`
`I
`
`am
`
`not
`
`an
`
`attorney
`
`and
`
`I
`
`do
`
`not
`
`offer
`
`any
`
`legal
`
`opinions in this proceeding, I have been informed of and relied on certain legal
`
`principles in reaching the opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`
`
`I
`
`understand
`
`that
`
`a
`
`patent
`
`claim
`
`is
`
`invalid
`
`if
`
`the
`
`differences
`
`between the subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. I further understand that an obviousness analysis involves a review
`
`of the scope and content of the asserted prior art, the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and objective indicia of non-obviousness such as long-felt need, industry
`
`praise for the invention, and skepticism of others in the field.
`
`8.
`
`I have been informed that if a single limitation of a claim is
`
`absent from the cited prior art, the claim cannot be considered obvious.
`
`9.
`
`I have further been informed that it is improper to combine
`
`references where the references teach away from a proposed combination; and
`
`that the following factors are among those relevant in considering whether
`
`prior art teaches away:
`
`• whether a POSITA, upon reading the reference would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant;
`
`• whether the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
`
`investigation into the claimed invention;
`
`• whether a proposed combination would produce an inoperative
`
`result; and
`
`• whether a proposed combination or modification would render the
`
`teachings of a reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`3
`
`
`

`

`10.
`
`
`
`In
`
`addition,
`
`I
`
`have
`
`been
`
`informed
`
`that
`
`a
`
`proposed
`
`combination
`
`that
`
`changes
`
`the
`
`basic
`
`principles
`
`under
`
`which
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`art
`
`was
`
`designed
`
`to
`
`operate may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`
`
`11.
`
`
`
`The
`
`‘646
`
`
`
`patent was filed October 8, 2008.
`
`For purposes of this
`
`declaration,
`
`I have assumed the priority date for the
`
`
`
` ‘646
`
`patent is
`
`October 8,
`
`2008.
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`12.
`
`
`
`I
`
`understand
`
`that
`
`a
`
`POSITA
`
`is
`
`a
`
`hypothetical
`
`person
`
`who
`
`is
`
`presumed to have ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the priority date. I understand
`
`that factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill
`
`the
`
`art;
`
`(b)
`
`in
`
`the
`
`art
`
`may
`
`include:
`
`(a)
`
`the
`
`type
`
`of
`
`problems
`
`encountered
`
`in
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are
`
`made;
`
`(d)
`
`the
`
`sophistication
`
`of
`
`the
`
`technology;
`
`and
`
`(e)
`
`the
`
`educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the qualifications
`
`of the person of ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`
`
`
`the ‘646 Patent
`
`pertains as
`
`of
`
`October
`
`8,
`
`2008.
`
`In
`
`my
`
`opinion,
`
`a
`
`POSITA
`
`is
`
`someone
`
`who
`
`would
`
`have
`
`possessed on the priority date a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science (or equivalent degree/experience) with at least two years of
`
`experience
`
`with
`
`cell
`
`phone
`
`technology
`
`and/or
`
`accelerometers.
`
`More
`
`experience could be substituted for educational requirements.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`14.
`
`
`
`I
`
`understand
`
`that
`
`Dr.
`
`
`
` Paradiso
`
`opines
`
`
`
`that
`
`a
`
`person
`
`of
`
`ordinary
`
`skill
`
`in
`
`the
`
`art
`
`
`
`“a
`
`Bachelor’s
`
`degree
`
`in
`
`Electrical
`
`Engineering,
`
`Computer
`
`Engineering,
`
`Computer
`
`Science,
`
`or
`
`equivalent
`
`training,
`
`as
`
`well
`
`as
`
`at
`
`least
`
`three
`
`years
`
`of
`
`technical
`
`experience
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field
`
`of
`
`computer
`
`systems
`
`and
`
`accelerometers; or (ii) in the alternative, someone who had a Master’s degree
`
`in
`
`Electrical
`
`Engineering,
`
`Computer
`
`Engineering,
`
`Computer
`
`Science,
`
`or
`
`
`
`equivalent training. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional
`
`disagree
`
`on
`
`some
`
`particulars
`
`with
`
`Dr.
`
`education,
`
`and
`
`vice
`
`versa.”
`
`While
`
`I
`
`Miller, even using his definition of a POSITA would not change my opinions
`
`
`
`and any differences are inconsequential to the dispute before the Board.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`
`
`Although
`
`my qualifications and
`
`experience
`
`exceed
`
`those
`
`of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis
`
`and opinions regarding
`
`
`the ‘646 Patent
`
`
`have been based on the perspective of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`October 2008.
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`
`
`16.
`
`
`
`I
`
`have
`
`been
`
`informed
`
`that,
`
`for
`
`purposes
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Inter
`
`Partes
`
`Review (IPR), the terms in the claims of
`
`
`
`
`
` the ‘646 Patent
`
`are to be given their
`
`Broadest
`
`Reasonable
`
`Interpretation
`
`(BRI)
`
`in
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`specification
`
`and
`
`prosecution history of
`
`‘646
`
`Patent as understood by a POSITA
`
`
`
` on the priority
`
`date. I have used this standard throughout my analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
` OVERVIEW OFTHE ‘646 PATENT
`
`1.
`
`
`
`The
`
`‘646
`
`
`
`patent
`
`is
`
`titled
`
`“Method And System For Waking Up
`
`A Device Due To Motion.” The ʼ646
`
`
`patent issued
`
`October 28, 2014.
`
` The
`
`specification of the
`
`
`‘646
`
`discloses
`
`
`several
`
`embodiments for an improved
`
`
`method and system
`
`for using accelerometers to detect when a device is being
`
`moved, then to wake that device and return it to its previous operating state.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`The Summary section of the
`
`
`
` ‘646
`
`patent provides the following
`
`general description of certain example embodiments:
`
`
`
`The system, in one embodiment, is designed to ensure that
`
`when the device is picked up by a user, the device is moved
`
`from the idle state to an active state rapidly. By initiating the
`
`transition
`
`from
`
`the
`
`idle
`
`state
`
`to
`
`the
`
`active
`
`state
`
`without
`
`requiring user input, the user wait is reduced. For example,
`
`when a user 100 picks up the device 110 from
`
`its position
`
`on the horizontal surface 115, the device is designed to wake
`
`up.
`
`In
`
`one
`
`embodiment,
`
`the
`
`device
`
`110
`
`is
`
`woken
`
`up
`
`from
`
`idle state and the user is presented the last active state of the
`
`device.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`construction of certain terms used in the claims of the ‘646 Patent as would
`
`be understood by a POSITA using the BRI.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`“glitch”
`
`
`
`The patent itself clarifies what it is referring to
`
`by glitch “In one
`
`embodiment, motion data for the dominant axis is analyzed and the device is
`
`woken up from idle state if the motion data analysis points to the motion being
`
`“real”
`
`motion
`
`as
`
`opposed
`
`to
`
`a
`
`mere
`
`jostle
`
`or
`
`
`
` glitch.”
`
`The
`
`patent
`
`also
`
`states
`
`“In
`
`one embodiment, the acceleration data is sent to the glitch correcting logic
`
`235, where the data is analyzed to determine if any it represents a glitch, i.e.,
`
`
`
` data outside a pre-determined range of acceptable data.”
`
`
`B.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`“A change in dominant axis”
`
`
`
`A POSITA would understand that a device has three axes: x, y,
`
`and z. And any particular point one of these is experiencing greater force than
`
`the other two, and this would be the dominant axis. A change in dominant axis
`
`occurs when the force
`
`exerted
`
`
`on the device changes so that a different axis is
`
`not experiencing the dominant force.
`
`This is described in claim 7 as “wherein
`
`
`the change in the dominant axis comprises a change in acceleration along the
`
`dominant axis” and in claim 1 “, the dominant axis defined as the axis with a
`
`largest effect from gravity among the three axes”.
`
`
`
`
`“dominant axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a
`C.
`
`dominant axis of the mobile device based on the motion data”
`
`6.
`
`
`
`Claim 12 provides a description of this “a dominant axis logic to
`
`determine an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the mobile device based
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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;”
`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`Note
`
`that
`
`the
`
`idle
`
`sample
`
`comes
`
`from
`
`determining
`
`acceleration
`
`over a sample period. Contrary to what the petitioner claims, software alone
`
`cannot do this. It must include hardware in the form of an accelerometer.
`
`
`
`
`“dominant axis logic … to compare a difference between a
`D.
`current sample value along the dominant axis determined based
`on the motion of the device and the idle sample value of the
`
`dominant axis against a threshold value”
`
`8.
`
`
`
`Again,
`
`the
`
`petitioner
`
`claims
`
`“hardware,
`
`software,
`
`or
`
`both
`
`that
`
`compares a difference between a current sample value along the dominant axis
`
`
`determined based on the motion of the device and the
`idle sample value of the
`
`dominant
`
`axis
`
`against
`
`a
`
`threshold
`
`value.”.
`
`However,
`
`a
`
`POSITA
`
`would
`
`understand
`
`the
`
`determining
`
`motion
`
`requires
`
`hardware,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`an
`
`accelerometer, and software by itself cannot perform this function.
`
`
`
`
`“computation logic to determine
`E.
`
`a change in the dominant axis”
`
`
`
`whether the motion caused
`
`9.
`
`
`
`The petitioner has truncated the actual quote from the patent in
`
`their petition. By separating this into two separate quotes, the actual meaning
`
`is obscured. The full quote is “a computation logic to determine whether the
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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. “. The ‘646 patent is abundantly clear on what
`
`this means, and a POSITA would have easily understood that this means there
`
`is logic that can determine whether any motion caused a change in the
`
`dominant axis and based on that change to wake up the device.
`
`10.
`
`In the summary of the invention, the '646 patent states "A
`
`computation logic analyzes the motion data to determine if the motion data
`
`indicates a real motion. If so, the device is woken up." Then in the detailed
`
`description the '646 patent states " In one embodiment, the long average and
`
`the dominant axis for which it is computed are received by computation logic
`
`255. The computation logic 255 also receives, based on a new sample of
`
`motion data, a current dominant axis and an updated current long average for
`
`the current dominant axis." The detailed description of the invention further
`
`states “At block 540, the computation logic determines if the long average
`
`along the dominant axis has changed by more than a threshold value, i.e., if
`
`the difference between the Current Sample value and the Idle Sample value is
`
`larger than the threshold value.”
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`9
`
`
`

`

`F.
`“power logic to wake up the device when the motion of the
`device indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device”
`
`11. As previously discussed, this is actually part of the preceding
`
`quote.
`
`G.
`“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”
`
`12. A POSITA would have understood this is the programming logic
`
`that will wake the device in the case that a change in the dominant axis is
`
`detected.
`
`H.
`“long average logic to calculate an average of accelerations
`over a sample period”
`
`13. Figure 4 of the ‘646 patent is very clear not only in what this text
`
`means, but even in describing the algorithm.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`10
`
`
`

`

`Figure 4 of the ‘646 patent
`
`
`
`14. The ‘646 patent clearly explains, and a POSITA would have
`
`understood “The accelerometer 220 periodically samples motion data. The
`
`long average logic 240 calculates an average of the acceleration data over the
`
`sample period”.
`
`15. The petitioner again repeats “hardware, software, or both that
`
`calculates an average of accelerations over a sample period.” This is contrary
`
`to the ‘646 patent which explicitly requires an accelerometer, which is
`
`hardware. Software, by itself, cannot accomplish this process.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`11
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`“device state logic to restore the device to a last active state”
`
`16. The petitioner again claims “hardware, software, or both that
`
`restores the device to a last active state.” This ignores the actual text, which
`
`states device state logic. A device indicates hardware. Device state logic can
`
`be firmware operating on the hardware, or software operating in conjunction
`
`with hardware, but software alone cannot accomplish this.
`
`VI. PETITIONER’S CITED REFERENCES
`
`17. Petitioners allege that the challenged Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-
`
`15,17, and 20 are obvious based on U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 (“Pasolini”) in
`
`view of “Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer”, Ron Goldman; U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,204,123 (“McMahan”) and “Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer
`
`Orientation” David Mizell.
`
`18. The petitioners further allege that the challenged claims 8, 16,
`
`and 18 are obvious based on on U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 (“Pasolini”) in view
`
`of “Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer”, Ron Goldman; U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,204,123 (“McMahan”) and “Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer
`
`Orientation” David Mizell and U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 (“Park”)
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`12
`
`
`

`

`VII. VALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed the claims in light of the proposed combinations
`
`and believe they do not disclose the claimed features.
`
`20. All of the prior art cited by the petitioner, alone or in
`
`combination, ignores several important features of the ‘646 invention.
`A. Last Active State
`
`21. None of the cited prior art has any mechanism to return a device
`
`to the last active state. This is an important part of the ‘646 patent.
`22.
`In the body of the patent we have “The system, in one
`
`embodiment, is designed to ensure that when the device is picked up by a user,
`
`the device is moved from the idle state to an active state rapidly. By initiating
`
`the transition from the idle state to the active state without requiring user input,
`
`the user wait is reduced. For example, when a user 100 picks up the device
`
`110 from its position on the horizontal surface 115, the device is designed to
`
`wake up. In one embodiment, the device 110 is woken up from idle state and
`
`the user is presented the last active state of the device.”
`
`23.
`
`and “to power up the device and restore the last active device
`
`state.”
`
`24.
`
`“logic 260 to restore the device to the last active device state”
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`13
`
`
`

`

`25. Claim 8 “8. The method of claim 1, wherein waking up the device
`
`further comprises configuring the device to return to a last active device
`
`state.” Note: claim 8 is one of the claims the petitioner is challenging.
`
`26. Claim 16 “16. The mobile device of claim 14, wherein waking
`
`up the device further comprises configuring the device to return to a last
`
`active device state.” Note: claim 16 is one of the claims the petitioner is
`
`challenging.
`
`27. The above citations from the ‘646 patent clearly show that the
`
`concept of returning to a last active device state is important in the ‘646 patent.
`
`It id described in two claims (claims the petitioner is challenging) and it is
`
`described in at least three portions of the body of the ‘646 patent.
`
`28. None of the prior art cited by the petitioner discusses in any way,
`
`returning a device to its last active device state. Therefore, no combination of
`
`this prior art can possibly teach that feature of the ‘646 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Pasolini
`
`29.
`
`In Pasolini, there is the following description “Some advantages
`
`of the invention are evident from the foregoing description. In the first place,
`
`the activation device 10 enables the apparatus 1 to be brought back
`
`automatically into the active state from the stand-by state, since it is based just
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`14
`
`
`

`

`upon the forces that are transmitted by the user when he picks up the apparatus
`
`1 to use it.”
`
`
`
`30.
`
`
`
`However,
`
`Pasolini only discusses waking the device. At no point
`
`does Pasolini discuss returning the device to its last active device state, as in
`
`the
`
`‘646
`
`patent.
`
`This
`
`is
`
`an
`
`important
`
`distinction.
`
`A
`
`device
`
`can
`
`be
`
`‘awake’
`
`but not be in its last active device state. It is advantageous to the device user,
`
`to have a device not merely wake, but return to its last active device state. This
`
`is something Pasolini did not discuss, and appears not to have contemplated.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Goldman
`
`
`
`31.
`
`
`
`Goldman is a description of a specific application programming
`
`interface
`
`(API)
`
`for
`
`a
`
`specific
`
`accelerometer.
`
`Goldman
`
`describes
`
`only
`
`a
`
`few
`
`functions, but lists others. It lists and/or describes:
`
`
`
`i.
`
`
`
`getAccelerometer()
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`isMoving()
`
`
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`demoBubbleLevel()
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`EdemoBoard.getInstance()
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`getCurrentScale()
`
`
`
`vi.
`
`
`
`getScales()
`
`
`
`vii.
`
`
`
`getZeroOffsets()
`
`
`
`viii.
`
`
`
`getRestOffsets()
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`32.
`
`It should be noted that nowhere in Goldman is there any
`
`description of waking a device, or returning it to its last active state.
`
`3. McMahan
`
`33. McMahan never mentions waking a device in any way, or
`
`returning it to its last active state.
`
`4. Mizell
`
`34. Mizell never mentions waking a device in any way, or returning
`
`it to its last active state.
`
`5.
`
`Park
`
`35. Park discusses saving data and restoring that data when the
`
`device wakes, but only restoring the data in response to a specific request to
`
`restore the data. Furthermore, Park teaches storing the data on a server, not on
`
`the device.
`
`36. Park describes storing data on the server in claim 5 “In a system
`
`which the data is saved to the server through a backup process of the method
`
`defined in the claim 4”
`
`37. More importantly, Park is a system for a portable computer, not
`
`for a cellular phone. Furthermore, Park is not related in anyway to an
`
`accelerometer.
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`B.
`
`Specific Combinations
`
`
`
`38.
`
`
`
`The
`
`combinations
`
`the
`
`petitioner
`
`suggests
`
`would
`
`not
`
`be
`
`combinations
`
`a
`
`POSITA
`
`would
`
`have
`
`considered,
`
`and
`
`in
`
`some
`
`cases
`
`are
`
`impossible to combine.
`
`
`
`
`Park
`1.
`
`Pasolini
`
`with
`
`Mizell,
`
`McMahan,
`
`Goldman,
`
`and/or
`
`39.
`
`
`
`Park
`
`is
`
`described
`
`as
`
`"The
`
`present
`
`invention
`
`discloses
`
`a
`
`method
`
`for saving data including system status data stored in a memory to a backup
`
`server
`
`via
`
`a
`
`data
`
`communication
`
`network
`
`if
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`capacity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`is
`
`not
`
`sufficient,
`
`by
`
`confirming
`
`continuously
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`capacity
`
`battery
`
`of the battery, in a suspend mode in a computer system." Park further states
`
`it is a portable computer system
`
`
`
`such as a notebook computer, PDA, or web
`
`
`PAD.
`
`The petitioner alters Parks
`
`own description. Park states
`
`“In a portable
`
`computer
`
`system
`
`such
`
`as
`
`a
`
`notebook
`
`computer,
`
`a
`
`PDA
`
`(Personal
`
`Digital
`
`Assistants) and a Web PAD etc.” But the petitioner states “Park relates to a
`
`“portable system” such as a PDA “(Personal Digital Assistant)”
`
`
`
`40.
`
`
`
`By
`
`ignoring
`
`the
`
`very
`
`first
`
`item
`
`Park
`
`describes,
`
`a
`
`notebook
`
`computer,
`
`the
`
`petitioner
`
`misunderstands
`
`the
`
`intention
`
`of
`
`Park.
`
`
`
`It
`
`should
`
`be
`
`further noted that Park is completely unrelated
`
`to accelerometers, which are
`
`the
`
`focus
`
`of
`
`Goldman
`
`and
`
`Mizell
`
`
`
`central
`
`to
`
`Pasolini
`
`and
`
`McMahan.
`
`A
`
`
`
` Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-289
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001, page
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`POSITA would not have had any reason to consider combining Park with any
`
`of Goldman, Mizell, Pasolini, or McMahan.
`
`
`
`41.
`
`
`
`I
`
`note
`
`that
`
`the
`
`petitioner
`
`makes
`
`the
`
`conclusory
`
`statement
`
`“A
`
`POSITA
`
`would
`
`have
`
`been
`
`motivated
`
`to
`
`apply
`
`the
`
`teachings
`
`of
`
`Park
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Pasolini and Goldman combination to provide convenience to the user.” But
`
`the
`
`petitioner
`
`does
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`any
`
`rational
`
`for
`
`a
`
`POSITA
`
`even
`
`considering
`
`Park with Pasolini
`
`or Goldman, much less combining them.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`
`
`
`
` I also note
`
`Dr. Paradiso, in his declaration, ignores the fact that
`
`completely
`
`different
`
`invention,
`
`in
`
`an
`
`entirely
`
`different
`
`field
`
`that
`
`Park
`
`was
`
`a
`
`Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, or Mizell.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`
`
`Dr.
`
`Paradiso,
`
`further
`
`misstates
`
`the
`
`purpose
`
`of
`
`Park.
`
`He
`
`claims
`
`that “A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Park to
`
`the
`
`Pasolini
`
`and
`
`Goldman
`
`combination
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`convenience
`
`to