`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 23, 2019
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQ.
`of: Erise IP
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`913-777-5611
`adam.seitz@eriseIP.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQ.
`of: Etheridge Law Group
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard, Suite 120-324
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`469-401-2659
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, January 23,
`2019, commencing at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`
`
`1:31 p.m.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Good afternoon, everyone. This is a
`hearing in Case No. IPR2018-00294, Apple, Inc. versus Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`formerly known as Uniloc Luxembourg SA. This is concerning U.S. Patent
`No. 6,736,759.
`I'd like to start by having counsel for the parties identify yourselves
`starting with Petitioner, please.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Adam Seitz for Apple.
`With me is my partner Paul Hart and then behind me Mark Breverman with
`Apple.
`
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Thank you. And Patent Owner?
`MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Brett
`Mangrum. I'm the lead counsel for Patent Owner. I will be speaking on
`behalf of the Patent Owner today and I'm with the Etheridge Law Firm.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Thank you. I'm Judge O'Hanlon and I'm
`joined here in the Alexandria hearing room by Judge Medley. We're joined
`remotely by Judge Horvath. The camera for Judge Horvath is located
`behind us so there's no need to look at the screen when addressing him.
`Judge Horvath will only be able to hear what the microphones pick
`up, so I ask counsel to keep that in mind when making their presentations
`today. And I also ask counsel when referencing demonstratives to please
`state the slide number so Judge Horvath can follow along more easily.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`Per our order dated January 7th, each side will have 45 minutes to
`argue. Petitioner will argue first and may reserve rebuttal time. Patent
`Owner will argue second and also may reserve rebuttal time.
`Now if you run over during your arguments in chief, I'm just going
`to restart the time so you'll run into your rebuttal time. I'll endeavor to let
`you know when that happens, but please keep the timer lights in mind.
`With that I will invite Mr. Seitz to begin.
`Do you wish to reserve rebuttal time and if so, how much?
`MR. SEITZ: Ten minutes, please, Your Honor.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: So I will set the clock for 35 minutes and
`you may begin when you're ready.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you. Judge Horvath, before I start I want to
`make sure you can hear from this microphone as well.
`JUDGE HORVATH: I can. Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: Okay. Excellent. May it please the Board, now,
`Your Honors, starting at DX-2 I want to narrow the disputes that we're going
`to be discussing today. Now we had originally presented a number of
`different grounds. The disputes as they've progressed through this
`proceeding have narrowed to grounds 1 and ground 3, both essentially the
`same. They rise and fall together. Those cover the combination of Fry and
`Newell. And ground 7, covering the combination of Vock in view of
`Arcelus.
`It's our position that no remaining disputes exist on the other
`dependent claims. Having looked at Patent Owner's demonstratives, there
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`may be still be a dispute regarding Claim 20. I'll address that in my rebuttal
`time.
`
`Before we get started and get into the actual references themselves, I
`want to briefly discuss the 759 patent. There's not a significant dispute
`between the parties, or really any dispute between the parties on the scope of
`the claims here or what the claims actually disclose.
`Fundamentally what the 759 patent is is an exercise monitoring
`system that has two distinct components. The first one is data acquisition
`unit. That comprises two separate things: an electronic positioning device,
`which we will refer to kind of interchangeably today as a GPS device, it tells
`you your location, and a physiological monitor, which in our case today
`we'll be referring to as the heart rate monitor. So the date acquisition unit
`has a GPS monitor and a heart rate monitor.
`There's also a display. As described in limitation 1B seen on DX-3,
`that display is separate from the data acquisition unit, meaning wherever
`your heart rate monitor and GPS device are, the display is separate from that.
`The display is there for displaying real-time data that comes from the
`electronic positioning device, the GPS, and the physiological monitor, the
`heart rate device. This unit is worn by an athlete or worn by a person.
`And then the last limitation makes clear that whatever you display,
`there needs to be at least location, altitude, velocity, pace or distance
`traveled. Claims 1 and 29 are nearly identical in scope. Claim 29 merely
`adds the idea of an alarm, depending on a certain threshold.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`So I want to start with grounds 1 and ground 3 relating to Fry and
`Newell. There's two fundamental arguments that we're going to address
`here today, two really remaining arguments for these grounds. Looking at
`DX-4 the two arguments are displaying real-time data. There's a question
`or a dispute between the parties as to whether Fry discloses real-time data,
`and then whether Petitioner has set forth sufficient evidence for the
`combination of Fry and Newell.
`Looking at DX-5 we can start with Fry, the base reference here. Fry
`discloses an exercise monitoring system. The specific embodiment
`discussed, disclosed and then pictured in Fry in Figure 1 as seen on the right
`side of DX-5 -- or maybe not -- as seen on the right side of DX-5 -- I'm not
`certain what happened to my display there, Your Honors. Do you have
`them in front of you? Oh, there it is. It came back.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: We do have copies of that.
`MR. SEITZ: Okay. The right side of DX-5 shows Figure 1 of Fry.
`That shows a bicycle embodiment which is discussed in Fry. You can see
`mounted between the handlebars the sports computer disclosed by Fry.
`That includes the GPS device and the display. And then Fry also discloses
`that it would have a heart rate monitor that you could use with this piece of
`equipment.
`Now though Fry is directed towards a bicycle, he also discloses that
`you can use it for running applications and instead of mounting it directly to
`the equipment, you could mount it directly to the body of the athlete. So
`the sports computer in Fry will collect GPS data, which is velocity, location,
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`speed as velocity, or distance, and heart rate, and then it provides that data,
`the measured data, to the user in real-time on its display.
`Which brings us to the first dispute that we have in this case, the
`question of real-time. Is the display of GPS data and heart rate data in Fry
`done in real-time?
`Now there's a claim construction that's at play here that has already
`been provided by the Federal Circuit in prior litigation involving the 759
`patent. There's no dispute from the initial determination between the parties
`as well that that construction will apply here and the Federal Circuit
`construed the phrase, displaying real-time data, as we see on DX-6, to be
`displaying data without intentional delay given the processing limitations of
`the system and the time required to accurately measure the data.
`So for purposes of our dispute today we're going to spend the
`majority of our time discussing what constitutes intentional delay. And to
`be a bit more specific, we're going to talk about what type of delay at the
`very end of this claim construction for the time required to accurately
`measure the data, whether time required to accurately measure the data
`constitutes intentional delay.
`So what is the data? We know from Claim 1, and I've repeated the
`very final limitation here which shows the things in DX-6 at the bottom,
`which shows the things that you would display, but we know from the claim
`itself in limitation 1B what the data is. And limitation 1B tells us that the
`display unit is going to display real-time data provided by two specific
`things: the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`So the question is does the measurement of the data provided by the
`GPS device and the heart rate monitor -- if those are measured first and then
`displayed, does that constitute intentional delay? The answer is no. And
`the answer is given to us by the Federal Circuit in its own analysis.
`Looking at DX-7 we reference page 1088 of the Federal Circuit's
`analysis. And there, when looking at how the data is measured and whether
`the measuring of that data constitutes intentional delay, the Federal Circuit
`was abundantly clear. They state, when the claimed system is in operation,
`the displayed data must first be acquired by the electronic positioning device
`and the physiological monitor and then transmitted to the display unit for
`display.
`So here the Federal Circuit is explicitly recognizing that real-time
`data includes a system where first it's going to collect two pieces of data; as
`they say, the electronic positioning device data, and the physiological
`monitor data. And then, which means next, they are going to transmit that
`information to the display unit for display. So the Federal Circuit itself has
`made clear that you can read both of these sensors, obtain the data from both
`of these sensors and then display them. And in that scenario where you're
`reading the data from both sensors, that does not constitute intentional delay.
`What does this look like in the 759 patent? This question of
`intentional delay I think is easiest described as we look at some graphical
`examples as depicted on DX-8. In DX-8 I've listed three scenarios. The
`three scenarios all relate to a runner who's going to run a certain distance.
`The right side, the checkered area indicates the end of that exercise.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`So if we start at the very top in our first scenario, we have a runner
`who's going to run a certain distance. During the course of that exercise his
`device is going to capture the GPS data for distance and the heart rate data to
`tell you what your heart rate is doing. In the first scenario though, the data
`is not displayed to the user until after the workout is complete. And we
`know from the 759 patent itself that this is not real-time data. This was
`confirmed by the Federal Circuit's analysis.
`The very point of the 759 patent as described in the specification is
`to provide feedback to give motivation to athletes who are using the device.
`The idea was that you can look at your device so you can see how your heart
`is doing, your distance is going, how fast you're going and modify your
`workout in the process. As acknowledged by the 759 patent, that cannot
`happen when you look at it afterwards.
`The Federal Circuit also acknowledged this and said as compared to
`device -- or to patents, the prior art, this invention of the 759 is different
`because it does not display it to you after you're done, which was one of the
`bases for overcoming a rejection in prosecution as well. Everybody agrees
`on this point.
`The reason this is so critical from the 759 standpoint is because the
`perspective of the 759 patent is the user. The point of the 759 patent is to
`give you feedback, specific feedback in real-time on the things that you need
`to see from the GPS, the positioning device, and from the physiological
`monitor. The perspective is not from the computer system. The
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`perspective of real-time data for the 759 is to the user. How can I modify
`my workout?
`The marathon example provided in the 759 patent tells of a runner
`engaged in a marathon who's able to look at the real-time data and adjust
`faster or slower based on the results of looking at that real-time data.
`So nobody disputes that data displayed afterwards does not
`constitute real-time data or that that is intentional delay. That's certainly not
`what we're dealing with with Fry here. There are other scenarios where
`you're shown data prior to the finish that also raised questions of whether
`that is real-time. The second scenario on DX-8 is a little closer, but still
`isn't there.
`Here we've depicted the same runner, and as this runner progresses
`through his run he is going to be shown data at a one-mile mark, two-mile
`mark, three-mile mark and four-mile mark. So the data is going to be
`collected the entire time, but it is going to be withheld from display until
`mile one where you're going to be shown your distance and your average
`heart rate at that point. It will then be withheld from display until it's
`updated again at mile two and so on and so forth.
`Here we see that that is intentional delay even though it's being
`provided during the course of the workout. It would not allow the user to
`modify their workout and does constitute an intentional delay, just the same
`as it would be intentional delay if you withheld it for 30 minutes, for
`example, and only provided it to the athlete every 30 minutes.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`Which brings us to the final scenario, which I believe accurately
`describes real-time under the 759 patent and under the claim construction
`from the Federal Circuit.
`In this scenario you are again capturing heart rate data and GPS data
`during the course of the entire workout, but as that data is measured it is
`provided to the user and then provided on the display to the user so that they
`can see what their actual distance is at any given point and what their actual
`heart rate is at any given point. So as the GPS and the heart rate are
`measured, that information is sent to the display, updated and the user is then
`able to see and modify their performance accordingly. That is the real-time
`contemplated by the 759 patent and the real-time within the construct of the
`Federal Circuit's construction.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Mr. Seitz, these three scenarios you have
`listed on this slide DX-8, these -- this is your interpretation of the 759 patent,
`right? These aren't three scenarios that are set forth in the patent itself?
`MR. SEITZ: That's correct, Your Honor. DX-8 is my
`interpretation of the Federal Circuit's ruling and the 759 patent itself.
`Moving to DX-9, I want to look at Fry then and compare what's
`disclosed in Fry and how it relates to real-time to what we know from the
`Federal Circuit.
`So Fry is depicted on DX-9. We've already discussed Fry, but
`Figure 3 is probably the best representation of what is happening within the
`sport computer in Fry. So looking at Figure 3 on the right side of DX-9,
`once a user initializes or says they're ready for their exercise, it's going to
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`proceed through the flowchart that you see here. The user is going to start
`the device. It's going to progress down and it's going to arrive at the GPS
`input.
`When the Fry system arrives at GPS, it's going to calculate its GPS
`coordinates moving towards the right. It's going to store those components,
`or store those calculations, and then it's going to move to what Fry calls
`time-critical sensors. Time critical sensors in Fry is his way of describing
`sensors that measure data that have a component of time with them. Heart
`rate is probably a perfect example of that. Heart rate is calculated by
`knowing how many beats you have in between two known time points.
`The other examples you see from Fry are a wheel sensor for telling
`you rpm, so that's revolutions; again time is a component of calculating that,
`or the crank on the bike. So when Fry refers to his time-critical sensors,
`he's referring to sensors that include time as a component of measuring that
`data. For our purposes of the combination we've made here that's heart rate.
`So Fry arrives at time-critical sensor for heart rate. The heart rate is
`computed and stored and then it moves on to scanning other sensors.
`Now these other sensors are not part of our proposed combination.
`We're focusing on GPS and heart rate. In Fry those sensors are optional and
`they would include things that are not based on a time measurement. The
`perfect example here is temperature. It's not a measurement that is based on
`time as an input to that calculation.
`Once that data is obtained, once it's read, computed and stored, it
`moves to the display. The display is updated and then you can see it's a
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`circle where it will continue to provide data and update the display as the
`user progresses through their workout.
`This is real-time. There is no intentional delay that is shown in this
`figure. There's no other processes, no other steps, nothing that is stepping
`in the middle of displaying that data to the user. This is confirmed to us by
`the disclosure within Fry itself. Fry describes the use of what are called
`interrupts. An interrupt is used for both the GPS and the heart rate, the
`time-critical sensors. So Fry discloses those two using these interrupts.
`An interrupt, as described by Dr. Easttom, Patent Owner's expert, is a way
`for the system to tap the processor on the shoulder and say this calculation
`needs to move from the bottom up to the top and this calculation needs to be
`performed now. It's a way of moving a calculation to the front of the line
`for the processor to ensure that it's taking place as quickly as possible.
`And Fry discloses that interrupts are used for the two key aspects
`here: GPS and heart rate. Because it uses interrupts, this confirms for us
`that Fry is actually operating in a way that is opposite of intentional delay.
`The system is doing whatever it can to move the GPS calculations and the
`heart rate calculations to the very front of the line to be calculated and then
`displayed.
`So what do these GPS interrupts look like, or these interrupts look
`like in practice? Looking at DX-10 I have depicted a GPS interrupt here.
`There are three scenarios that I'll walk through briefly here on the next three
`slides: a GPS interrupt, a heart rate interrupt and then both of those together.
`So in the case of a GPS interrupt, if it's time for an update to the GPS data,
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`the system in Fry will generate a GPS interrupt, which in layman's terms
`again is going to tap the processor on the shoulder and say GPS needs to be
`calculated right now. That will be calculated or computed as shown in
`Figure 3. It will be stored and then that will move to updating the display.
`The heart rate monitor interrupt operates the same. In an event
`where you have a heart rate monitor interrupt, the system will be tapped on
`the shoulder and say process heart rate update now. The heart rate will be
`computed, stored and it will move to the display.
`Finally, you enter a scenario where you see both being generated as
`interrupts. And in this scenario you'll have a GPS interrupt and a heart rate
`interrupt. The GPS interrupt will tell the system that the GPS needs to be
`calculated now without delay. It will be computed and stored. And
`because also a heart rate interrupt was generated, the system will then move
`to the heart rate interrupt, the time-critical sensor component of Figure 3 on
`DX-12. The heart rate will be calculated; it will be stored. And then the
`system will move to update the display with both pieces of information that
`it has just calculated.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Mr. Seitz, if you have this -- the blocks, the
`350 Blocks are grayed out on this slide, DX-12. If those steps were
`included in this process, would that still be a real-time display of the GPS
`and the heart rate event?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, if I go back so I don't have the grayed-out blocks,
`to DX-9, and we look at scanning other sensors, Fry first tells us that these
`sensors are optional. But second, yes, it would still be real-time because all
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`you were doing at Block 350 is scanning those other sensors. And if there's
`no update necessary, Fry says it moves immediately to updating the display.
`So I believe that is still real-time.
`Looking at DX-13, the Patent Owner has set up what we have called
`an impossible standard for the real-time display. And this relates -- Patent
`Owner's contention relates on the impossibility standard to the question of
`intentional delay. Patent Owner contends if it was impossible to avoid the
`delay, I mean, literally impossible, then that would not be intentional delay.
`In essence what this does is result in a system that can calculate no other
`sensor data, nor store sensor data because you must immediately move to the
`display of the data that you just read.
`Focusing on DX-14 to put this in more graphical terms, this is Figure
`3 under the standard that we believe -- the narrower standard that we believe
`Patent Owner is proposing here. In this situation what Patent Owner is
`proposing is that you would read the GPS data, you would compute the GPS
`data and then you would immediately display that data before you would
`even move on to the heart rate data. And once you arrive at the heart rate
`data, you would compute that and then display it.
`You would not ever end up in a scenario where you could read two
`sensors at the same time and then display them, according to Patent Owner's
`contention, which we believe is a narrowing of the Federal Circuit's
`construction. The problem with Patent Owner's contention as seen on DX-
`15 is that it excludes the claimed scenario and ignores the Federal Circuit
`claim language.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`We've discussed limitation 1B from the 759 patent, which is not
`depicted on the screen, but describes displaying real-time data provided by
`the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor, and we
`know from the limitation depicted on DX-15 that that includes at least one of
`those. But more importantly, the Federal Circuit itself looked at the
`question of what data is being read and it noted, and we've already looked at
`this, that when the claimed system is in operation the displayed data must
`first be acquired by the electronic positioning device and the physiological
`monitor.
`That is our situation here. You're acquiring GPS and heart rate.
`And then the Federal Circuit noted, and then you transmit both of those
`pieces of data to the display unit for display.
`So Patent Owner's construction or contention or approach here to the
`intentional delay actually takes the Federal Circuit's construction and a
`scenario explicitly acknowledged by the Federal Circuit and narrows it down
`to a read display scenario where all you can ever do is read and display.
`And we believe that's inappropriate for those reasons.
`JUDGE HORVATH: Let me ask you a question about the Federal
`Circuit's language here and run an example by you.
`Let's assume that in the heart rate monitor, the way the algorithm
`works is that you measure the heart rate and then it goes to sleep for, I don't
`know, let's say a minute and then it wakes up and it measures the heart rate
`again for 30 seconds and then it goes to sleep for a minute and et cetera, so
`that you're only getting a reading once every minute-and-a-half or so.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`In the meantime the GPS data -- maybe it reads the GPS data and
`then it sleeps for two minutes. And then it measures the GPS data for let's
`say a half a minute and goes to sleep again for two minutes, so you're only
`getting a GPS reading once every three minutes.
`Would that then -- even though you're getting heart rate data at a
`different pace let's say -- or a different, in different intervals than the GPS
`data -- would you say that there's no intentional delay in the heart rate data
`because according to the Federal Circuit you have to acquire the data from
`the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor and then
`transmit? So you're -- there's -- in other words there's a rate-limiting step
`here which is the rate at which you acquire the GPS data.
`Would you say in that scenario that you only -- that real-time data is
`the data that you receive every three minutes when you get the GPS data or
`is the heart rate data different in that -- because you know you can get it
`quicker, you have to display it quicker?
`MR. SEITZ: So that scenario, maybe not specifically as you've
`described it, Judge Horvath, but the scenario of how long it takes to actually
`calculate some of these sensors was discussed at length by the Federal
`Circuit immediately following the section that I've quoted here on page
`1088.
`
`And what the Federal Circuit acknowledged is that the majority of
`these sensors -- immediately saying after the I-need-to-read-A-and-B, the
`GPS and heart rate, the Federal Circuit then goes on to explain that of course
`these are time-based measurements that are going to include significant
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`components of time for how long it takes to measure, that GPS will
`necessarily include two data points that have a time between them. And
`then they follow on with that by saying that the heart rate will also include a
`delay because you're going to have to calculate the number of beats between
`two known time periods.
`So I believe the Federal Circuit's construction in the opinion as it
`further describes how these sensors are read and the question of needing to
`be time-based measurements, I do believe it contemplates that and would
`still consider that real-time.
`Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE HORVATH: I think so. So in other words, even if there's
`a rate-limiting step where your two sensors aren't necessarily acquiring data
`at the same rate, is your answer that whichever is the slower device -- as
`long as you're processing the data from the slower device and displaying that
`in essentially real-time, then you are necessarily displaying the data from
`both the positioning measuring device and the heart rate measuring device,
`or the physiological measurement device -- you're displaying both in real-
`time, providing you are displaying the slowest of those two devices in real-
`time? Is that your understanding of the Federal Circuit's decision?
`MR. SEITZ: That is correct. That discussion on the slowness of
`how some of these calculations occur immediately follows this discussion of
`requiring both to be measured and then displayed. So, yes, I believe that's
`still real-time even if you're waiting for the -- I believe you said slowest of
`the two to occur.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`JUDGE HORVATH: Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: The second dispute as shown on DX-16 as it relates to
`Fry and Newell is a question of whether the display in Fry is separate from
`the data acquisition unit. This limitation is seen in 1B as highlighted here.
`The display unit, what's showing you your data, must be separate from your
`GPS and your heart rate.
`Looking at DX-17, we know from Fry, at least the disclosure of
`what's shown in Fry on the bicycle computer, is that it's a fully self-
`contained unit. It's shown on the handlebars of the bicycle. But Fry
`acknowledges itself in the specification that it can be used for running and in
`that scenario it would be mounted directly to the athlete. That's depicted on
`the right side of DX-17 and it includes means for mounting as enclosed
`mobile -- an enclosed mobile computer system -- directly to the athlete.
`So Fry itself contemplates a scenario where you would mount it
`directly to an athlete who is running, but it leaves it to a PHOSITA to figure
`out how that would be done. And here is where our combination
`specifically relies on Newell.
`We have proposed the use of Newell, looking at DX-18, for its
`separate heads-up display. Newell is a body-mounted computing device
`that uses sensors very similar to Fry and very similar to the 759: GPS and
`heart rate. Newell mentions that it can be used in jogging applications and
`it includes separate body-mounted sensors that provide its data to a body-
`mounted computer shown on the bottom left of DX-18, which then sends its
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR 2018-00294
`Patent 6,736,759 B1
`
`data up to an eyeglasses-mounted display, a heads-up display on a set of
`eyeglasses or sunglasses.
`And so we have proposed a combination that takes the disclosure in
`Fry, the sports computer in Fry that collects and shows GPS and heart rate in
`real-time, but then utilizes a system like Newell to provide that information
`to an athlete as a heads-up display in real-time.
`On DX-19, moving on, the Patent Owner has contended that there's
`no evidence for this combination, that we have not set forth the appropriate
`factual inquiry for the reasons on why someone would complain -- or I'm
`sorry, why someone would combine these references. DX-20, we --
`Petitioner set forth the analysis and the opinion of Dr. Kenneth Fyfe.
`Dr. Fyfe was our expert who opined on why someone, a PHOSITA,
`would actually combine these two references. Dr. Fyfe's background, he
`spent nearly his entire career in the sports computer industry building,
`developing, designing sensors that go on either equipment or athletes that
`measure data and then send that to a display. As Dr. Fyfe describes in his
`declaration, he was one of the founders of a company called Dynastream that
`built foot pods that measured distance and speed, send that data to a separate
`device. He has history of patents relating to sports computers and his
`current job is at a company called 4iiii where they develop separate sensors
`that are mounted on bicycles that transmit information to a separate display.
`He is undoubtedly qualified in this area.
`He looked at the combination of Fry and Newell and provided 15
`separate paragraphs on the analysis for the reaso
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
