UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00294
`Patent No. 6,736,759
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00294
`Patent No. 6,736,759
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 1
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is Obvious over Fry in view of Newell. ...................... 1
`i.
`“Displaying real-time data” does not exclude displaying new data from
`multiple sensors ................................................................................................. 1
`ii. Fry does not teach away from Newell, and the combination is fully
`supported by the evidentiary record .................................................................. 9
`B. Ground 7: Vock in view of Arcelus .......................................................... 11
`i. PO mischaracterizes the proposed combination and support thereof ....... 11
`ii. The combination of Vock and Arcelus renders obvious “a display unit
`configured for displaying real-time data provided by said electronic
`positioning device and said physiological monitor” ........................................ 13
`C. All Grounds ................................................................................................. 16
`i. Mr. Easttom’s dependent claim critique was effectively withdrawn in his
`deposition ......................................................................................................... 16
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Having made a conscious decision not to depose Petitioner’s expert, whose
`
`opinions Patent Owner (“PO”) misconstrued in its Preliminary Response, PO’s
`
`Response turns primarily on the same arguments preliminarily rejected by the board
`
`in its Institution Decision. Because those arguments here suffer the same flaws as
`
`before, they should again be rejected.
`
`PO did, however, elaborate on its position that displaying data in “real-time”
`
`requires a level of immediacy so precise that it would exclude a system designed to
`
`read from and display data from multiple sensors. In advocating for this narrow
`
`construction, PO ignores the claim language and intrinsic record and accuses both
`
`Petitioner and the Board of misapplying the Federal Circuit’s prior claim
`
`construction. For these and the reasons explained below, PO’s arguments should be
`
`rejected.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is Obvious over Fry in view of Newell.
`
`i.
`
`“Displaying real-time data” does not exclude displaying new
`data from multiple sensors
`PO’s primary argument is that Fry does not teach “real-time” display of GPS
`
`data. Response, 5-11. In support, PO argues that “intervening processing blocks . . .
`
`between storing [new] GPS data and ultimately displaying that data” preclude the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`Fry system from satisfying the claimed “real-time” display. Id. at 11. But these
`
`“intervening processing blocks” on which PO’s argument depends are simply the
`
`steps by which other sensor data is processed so that all sensor data, including GPS,
`
`can be displayed in “real-time” accounting for only the processing limitations of the
`
`system. There is no intentional delay imposed on the display of GPS or any sensor
`
`data in the Fry system. Instead, the Fry system reads all sensors and updates the
`
`display as quickly as its processing limitations permit. Yet, this is precisely what is
`
`claimed.
`
`Claim 1 explicitly allows for the possibility that data from multiple sensors
`
`could be read and then displayed, as Fry discloses. Claim 1 requires a “display unit
`
`displays real-time data comprising at least one of a subject's location, altitude,
`
`velocity, pace, and distance traveled.” See, e.g., ’759 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 28:13-16.
`
`The claim’s reference to displaying “real-time data comprising at least one of” the
`
`listed parameters explicitly allows for the possibility that data from two or more
`
`sensors could be read and displayed—exactly as disclosed in Fry. PO’s view, in
`
`contrast, would entirely, and improperly, eliminate the “at least” language from
`
`claim 1. This unduly narrows the claim to a situation where real-time could only be
`
`met by the separate and immediate update of each sensor. In other words, it would
`
`expressly read out the scenario where multiple sensors are read sequentially and
`
`displayed in real-time after the data to be displayed has been measured. This is far
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`outside the broadest reasonable interpretation of real-time under the Federal
`
`Circuit’s definition and the plain reading of Claim1.
`
`Advancing its narrow view, PO first suggests the Board allegedly
`
`misinterpreted the Federal Circuit’s construction of “real-time,” arguing the Board
`
`conflated the Federal Circuit’s narrow example of non-real-time display (i.e., storing
`
`sensor data for review after an activity) with its broader construction (i.e., displaying
`
`without intentional delay). Response, 5-7. The Board did no such thing. It correctly
`
`acknowledged that Fry reads multiple sensors before immediately updating the
`
`display and concluded this process does not introduce intentional delay. Institution
`
`Decision, 12. Fry is not only starkly different from the Federal Circuit’s example of
`
`non-real-time display in which the data is stored until the activity completes, but Fry
`
`also stands apart from hypothetical systems that introduce intentional delay, such as
`
`an exercise monitor that updates its display once every 30 minutes to preserve power.
`
`Put simply, the Board correctly applied the Federal Circuit’s construction, not
`
`merely a single example, to Fry’s teachings.
`
`Far narrower than the Board’s or the Federal Circuit’s construction, PO argues
`
`that any intervening steps after capturing GPS data, including reading other sensors,
`
`constitutes an intentional delay. Response, 8-9 (“Fry’s deliberate design choice to
`
`not update the display with the GPS data until after servicing a handful of other time-
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`consuming functions, by definition, means that Fry explicitly discloses an intentional
`
`delay[.]”) This narrow view was reiterated by PO’s expert, Mr. Easttom:
`
`Q: Okay. My question, sir, is what your understanding of “without
`intentional delay” is.
`A: In any situation wherein there is any processing activity that
`wasn’t absolutely necessary – because it does say, given the processing
`limitations of the system – if it was impossible to avoid the delay, I
`mean, literally impossible, then that would not be intentional delay.
`Any other delay is intentional, regardless of the time frame of the delay.
`Easttom Cross-Examination (Ex. 1027) at 18:20-19:3 (emphasis added). Mr.
`
`Easttom elaborated, “not only would other calculations be intentional delay,
`
`but withholding the display of the actual GPS coordinates until you’ve
`
`calculated speed would be intentional delay.” Id. at 18:21-24.
`
`This narrow view is inconsistent with the PO’s prosecution statements,
`
`the ’759 Patent specification itself, and the Federal Circuit’s rationale. During
`
`prosecution, the Examiner rejected the independent claims as anticipated by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,013,007 to Root et al. (“Root”). ’759 File History (Ex. 1003)
`
`at 62-64. When the Applicant amended the claims to require displaying “real-
`
`time data,” it explained that this was intended to distinguish the display of
`
`performance data “after the athlete has completed their activity”:
`
`[T]he personal computer depicted in Fig. 7 of Root cannot be used to
`display real-time data, as required by claim 1. Rather, the personal
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`computer in Fig. 7 of Root will merely display performance data after
`the athlete has completed their activity. Thus, claim 1 as amended
`herein, clearly distinguishes over Root.
`Id. at 51, 53 (emphasis in original). Nothing in the prosecution history supports PO’s
`
`current extreme position that “real-time” display requires that there be literally no
`
`activity taking place between reading the data from a single sensor and displaying
`
`that single sensor’s data. Consistent with this, the Federal Circuit highlighted a
`
`rationale similar to the Applicant’s file history statements in construing the term
`
`“real-time”:
`
`[T]he specification’s criticism of prior art as not providing
`“instantaneous” feedback cannot be read as suggesting that the
`patented invention displays data literally instantaneously. Rather,
`the criticism of prior art is more appropriately read to distinguish
`the inventions “real-time” display from prior art methods that
`stored data for review only after the activity was complete, so that
`the user could not make modifications during the course of the activity.
`Thus, the specification supports a construction of “real-time” in this
`case that precludes intentionally delaying the display of data by storing
`it for later review.
`CAFC Opinion (Ex. 1023) at 12 (emphasis added). PO’s current view amounts, in
`
`practice, to an argument that “real-time” display requires immediate display of a
`
`single sensor without any further processing—a view that was expressly rejected by
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the ’759 Patent cannot be read to require
`
`displaying “literally instantaneously.”
`
`PO’s narrow interpretation is also unsupported by the specification of the ’759
`
`Patent, which repeatedly uses the term real-time merely in the context of displaying
`
`data to the user so as to be useful to the user during the activity. See, e.g., ’759 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at 6:39-41 (“The systems and methods of the present invention, for
`
`example, provide real-time data and feedback useful to individuals performing
`
`a physical activity (such as athletes).”) (emphasis added). There is no support,
`
`intrinsic or otherwise, for PO’s overly narrow view that real-time display means that
`
`a single sensor must be read and immediately displayed to the exclusion of all other
`
`sensor data that is to be displayed as well.
`
`In its discussion of “real-time,” the Federal Circuit noted the specification’s
`
`criticisms of systems that “stored data for review only after the activity was
`
`complete[.]” CAFC Opinion (Ex. 1023) at 12. Though it is difficult to tell if PO is
`
`arguing for a broad prohibition on any storage of the data, such an interpretation
`
`would be incorrect. The Federal Circuit’s reference to storing data for later review
`
`cannot literally prohibit any “storage” of the data because a computer needs to
`
`“store” data, even if only temporarily, before it can perform any operations on it,
`
`including displaying. The “storing” in the Federal Circuit’s opinion is more properly
`
`understood as referring to permanently storing the data to intentionally delay its
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`display during the activity, rather than the “storing” that is part of measuring and
`
`displaying the data (as described in box 338 of Fry). And, in any event, even PO’s
`
`expert agrees that Fry is designed to display updated data to the user during an
`
`activity so that the user can make modifications during the activity. Easttom Cross-
`
`Examination (Ex. 1027) at 58:22-60:4.
`
`The confusion here seems
`
`to come from PO’s and
`
`its expert’s
`
`misunderstanding of the perspective and purpose of real time in the ‘759 Patent. PO
`
`and its expert focus on the question of “real-time” from the perspective of the
`
`processing system,1 while the ‘759 Patent focuses on the question of “real-time”
`
`display of data from the user’s perspective. When asked whether the alleged delay
`
`in Fry is perceptible to the user, PO’s expert testified “I would say that’s the entire
`
`wrong perspective to look at.” Easttom Cross-Examination (Ex. 1027), at 26:2-15.
`
`Of course, that is the very perspective on which the ‘759 Patent is focused. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 6:39-41 (“The systems and methods of the present invention, for example,
`
`provide real-time data and feedback useful to individuals performing a physical
`
`activity (such as athletes)).” (emphasis added); see also 23:66-24:2 (“When the
`
`system is worn by a human subject performing a physical activity, he or she may
`
`simply view the display screen at any time in order to obtain their speed, pace
`
`and/or distance traveled.”) (emphasis added); 26:16-19 (“Such a method can provide
`
`
`1 Response, 7-11.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`an effective training tool for athletes in that they (or their coaches) can more
`
`effectively control training sessions, or even monitor their performance during a
`
`race.”) (emphasis added). When looked at from the perspective of the user, the delay
`
`in Fry for processing and storing the additional sensors is minute, on the order of
`
`“micro or milliseconds” according to PO’s expert. Easttom Cross-Examination (Ex.
`
`1027), 24:16-25:11. Such a minute delay would not even be noticeable by the user.
`
`Id., at 24:16-25:11 (“First of all, would the user notice the few milliseconds,
`
`probably not.”). Thus, when viewed from the proper perspective, it is clear that any
`
`delay in Fry from temporarily storing data from multiple sensors before updating the
`
`display has no bearing on whether that data is provided to the user in real-time.
`
`
`
`In sum, the proposed combination of Fry in view of Newell performs only two
`
`measurements—GPS and heart rate. The GPS data is retained for a brief moment
`
`while the processing flow of the system obtains and measures the heart rate data,
`
`after which both values are promptly displayed for the user benefit during exercise.
`
`See Fry (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 3; 6:1-36 (describing use of “interrupts” to calculate GPS
`
`coordinates, scan “other sensors” such as a heart rate sensor, and update the display
`
`from a memory buffer). Moreover, Fry is explicitly programmed so as to avoid
`
`intentional delay associated with the measuring and display of the data. When
`
`measuring both GPS and heart rate, Fry utilizes “interrupts” to move these
`
`measurements to the front of the line for processing. See Fry (Ex. 1004) at 6:6-9
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`(describing how once a GPS position is received “an interrupt is generated”); 6:18-
`
`21 (describing how the heart rate measurements are “received in the form of an
`
`interrupt to avoid unnecessary buffering.”). PO’s expert agreed that an “interrupt”
`
`would place the calculation request at the front of the line for the processor, and that
`
`if the request is granted it will “be processed sooner than it would have if it were
`
`placed at the end of the line[.]” Easttom Cross-Examination (Ex. 1027) at 44:20-
`
`45:7; see also id. at, 39:18-43:6; 44:6-45:7 (generally discussing interrupts and how
`
`they are handled by the processor). Thus, the Fry multi-sensor display update is
`
`precisely the type contemplated by the ’759 Patent and is wholly consistent with the
`
`Federal Circuit’s and this Board’s claim construction.
`
`ii.
`
`Fry does not teach away from Newell, and the combination is
`fully supported by the evidentiary record
`PO’s second set of Ground 1 arguments were included in its Preliminary
`
`Response and has been preliminarily rejected by the Board, finding PO’s arguments
`
`“overlook Petitioner’s articulation of how the combined teachings of Fry and Newell
`
`render obvious the claimed subject matter.” Institution Decision, 14. Because PO
`
`continues to ignore the combination and evidence and arguments in support thereof,
`
`these arguments should again be rejected.
`
`PO first argues that Fry teaches away from Newell and, more broadly, from
`
`any reference that would “vitiate Fry’s intended design of combining its GPS
`
`receiver and display into a single device.” Response, 11-12. As the Board previously
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`noted, “‘teaching away’ requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
`
`otherwise discourage the claimed solution.” Institution Decision, 16-17 (citing In re
`
`Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Applying this standard, the Board
`
`concluded PO “has not identified any such disparagement . . . and, thus, has not
`
`persuasively established that Fry teaches away from the combination set forth by
`
`Petitioner.” Id. In its Response, PO has provided no additional factual basis with
`
`which the Board could modify its conclusion. Accordingly, PO’s unsupported
`
`“teaching away” argument should once again be rejected.
`
`PO next argues the Petition fails to explain how or why the references would
`
`be combined. Response, 13. This exact argument was rejected by the Board, which
`
`concluded the Petition “‘satisfactorily addresses both ‘the benefits that could have
`
`been obtained by combining the prior art references’ and ‘the PHOSITA’s
`
`motivation to combine at the time of the invention.’” Institution Decision, 15-16
`
`(citing In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Namely, as outlined
`
`in the Petition and as discussed by the Board, Fry teaches a specific bicycling
`
`embodiment then expressly notes (1) that its system could be adapted for other
`
`sports, including running, and (2) that its sports monitoring computer can be
`
`mounted directly to an athlete. Fry (Ex. 1004) at 2:44-54. But, for reasons explained
`
`by Dr. Fyfe, the bicycling computer embodiment would not be mounted in its
`
`entirety to a runner. Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶38. Instead, a PHOSITA would have
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`looked to disclosures of body mounted computing systems (such as Newell) for
`
`guidance on adapting the bicycling embodiment of Fry to a running application. Id.
`
`Dr. Fyfe further explains that a heads-up display as disclosed in Newell would be a
`
`preferable solution to adapt the bicycling embodiment of Fry for a running
`
`application. Id. at ¶39. As with its Preliminary Response, PO again ignores this
`
`factual support and rationale from Dr. Fyfe, electing to cite only Dr. Fyfe’s overview
`
`sentences and argue that his testimony is “conclusory.” Response, 14-15. Because
`
`PO ignores the proposed combination and provides no new evidence and arguments
`
`in support of this recycled arguments, they should once again be rejected.
`
`PO provides no additional arguments regarding Grounds 2-6.
`B. Ground 7: Vock in view of Arcelus
`
`i.
`PO mischaracterizes the proposed combination and support thereof
`PO begins its challenge to the proposed combination of Vock and Arcelus by
`
`restating its arguments from the Preliminary Response. Namely, PO argues the
`
`Petition “fails to identify any element in Vock allegedly satisfying a wearable ‘data
`
`acquisition unit’ comprising both (1) ‘an electronic positioning device’ and (2) ‘a
`
`physiological monitor” and that “[m]issing limitations cannot be cured by []
`
`conclusory hindsight analysis.” Response, 17-18. As noted in the Institution
`
`Decision, however, the Petitioner proposes modifying Vock’s device to include a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`GPS monitor and a heart rate monitor in a single unit and does not suggest that Vock
`
`alone satisfies this limitation. Institution Decision, 25-26 (citing Petition, 49).
`
`Citing DSS Tech., PO then reargues its mischaracterization of the proposed
`
`combination and support thereof, arguing that the motivation to combine is
`
`conclusory and lacks “evidentiary support or explanatory underpinning.” Response,
`
`18-19. As the Board previously acknowledged, PO’s reliance on DSS Tech. is
`
`misplaced and ignores that the Petition provides “articulated reasoning with rational
`
`underpinnings.” Institution Decision, 26. For example, the Petition includes multiple
`
`sources of evidentiary support, including from Vock itself, to support the proposed
`
`modification. Petition, 49-52. Dr. Fyfe also analyzes these teachings from Vock:
`
`A PHOSITA would understand that the embodiment in Figure 27
`would readily benefit from a GPS system, since Vock expressly
`describes the benefits of using a GPS receiver for any of the speed and
`position measurement embodiments. Vock at 19:9-23; 39:22-30; 41:9-
`32 (EX1006). Thus, a PHOSITA would have included a GPS in the
`embodiment in Figure 27 based on the guidance and teachings
`expressly contained in Vock.
`Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶66. Dr. Fyfe elaborates that a PHOSITA would have sought
`
`to consolidate the GPS receiver and heart rate monitor in order to share a power
`
`supply and “to reduce the number of components that need to be worn by the user.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 67. This testimony is based on Vock’s express teachings and Dr. Fyfe’s
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`opinion of the knowledge of a PHOSITA, and provides rational, factual
`
`underpinnings for the motivation to combine.
`
`PO finally asserts that Dr. Fyfe is not qualified “as an expert on human
`
`biology” to assert what parameters could be used by an athlete to understand their
`
`personal conditioning. Response, 19. But, PO’s argument is contradicted by its own
`
`expert, Dr. Easttom, who testified that a PHOSITA would need only a bachelor’s
`
`degree and “2 years of experience related to mobile devices and/or physiological
`
`monitoring.” See Easttom Decl. (Ex. 2001) at ¶ 13.
`
`ii.
`
`The combination of Vock and Arcelus renders obvious “a
`display unit configured for displaying real-time data provided
`by said electronic positioning device and said physiological
`monitor”
`PO next repeats its mischaracterizations of the proposed combination of Vock
`
`and Arcelus and support thereof. These too should again be rejected by the Board.
`
`First, PO argues the Petition provides only speculative statements from Dr.
`
`Fyfe to support (1) adding pulse/heart rate monitoring to the real-time display
`
`disclosed by Vock and (2) combining elements from different Vock embodiments.
`
`Response, 20-21, citing Petition, 47-52 and Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66-68. PO ignores Dr.
`
`Fyfe’s explanation that a PHOSITA would recognize users engaged in the high-
`
`intensity exercises described by Vock would benefit from feedback based on GPS
`
`and heart rate data to gain an understanding of their energy expended during
`
`exercise. Id. at ¶ 67. PO also ignores the express teachings of Vock and Dr. Fyfe’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`explanation that “a PHOSITA would understand that the embodiment in Figure 27
`
`would readily benefit from a GPS system, since Vock expressly describes the
`
`benefits of using a GPS receiver for any of the speed and position measuring
`
`embodiments. Vock at 19:9-23; 39:22-30; 41:9-32 (EX1006).” Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002)
`
`at ¶ 66. Dr. Fyfe also explained the overlap between embodiments in Figures 27 and
`
`28 as follows, which leads to natural interchangeability between them:
`
`Both embodiments apply to sports such as skiing and snowboarding,
`both embodiments rely on GPS-based sensor measurements, and both
`present sensor data to the user via a wrist-mounted display. Thus, a
`PHOSITA would recognize that teachings discussed with reference to
`only one of these embodiments would apply equally to the other. For
`example, it would be obvious to implement the real-time display of
`speed and airtime discussed with reference to FIG. 27 (see Vock at
`40:38-40) in a system where the GPS is mounted on the user’s body
`like that described with reference to FIG. 28.
`Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶66. Further, as recognized by the Board, the Petition sets
`
`forth reasoning why it would have been obvious to include the heart rate monitor
`
`concept from Arcelus in Vock’s device. Institution Decision, 30 (citing Petition, 51).
`
`All of these explanations and teachings in the prior art provide the factual
`
`underpinning for the motivations to combine the embodiments in Vock and Arcelus,
`
`which PO ignored rather than address directly.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`Second, PO argues that even if the embodiments in Figures 27 and 28 of Vock
`
`are combined, the Petition “fails to identify which portion of either Figure 27 or
`
`Figure 28 of Vock allegedly provides the claimed ‘real-time data provided by said .
`
`. . physiological monitor.’” Response, 22. PO again mischaracterizes the proposed
`
`combination and overlooks the explanations in the Petition and the rationale
`
`provided by Dr. Fyfe. As the Board noted, the Petition makes clear that the proposed
`
`combination relied on both Vock and Arcelus for this limitation. Institution Decision,
`
`30 (citing Petition, 49-52). The Petition “identifies GPS data, heart rate data, and
`
`real-time data display in the cited references, and proposes modifications to 1)
`
`combine the GPS and heart rate monitor into a single unit, 2) display real-time data
`
`on the watch of Vock Figure 28 like that of Figure 27, and 3) display heart rate data
`
`in real-time as in Arcelus.” Id at 31 (citing Petition, 48-52).
`
`
`
`Third, PO argues that Vock does not disclose the real-time display because it
`
`includes the qualifier “near” or “nearly” before “real-time.” This once again ignores
`
`the actual language in Vock, best explained by Dr. Fyfe:
`
`Based on the teachings in Vock to use a wrist-mounted display to
`enable the user to “look at the watch 744 (nearly during some sporting
`activities) to monitor performance data in near-real time” and that the
`“sensing unit can provide real-time performance data to the user, via
`a connected display or via a data unit[,]” a PHOSITA would have
`understood that all of the connected sensors would have been
`configured to provide data in real-time. Id. at 40:44-45; 5:65-67. Since
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`Vock teaches the benefits of displaying “performance data” in real-
`time, and the heart rate data constitutes “performance data,” a
`PHOSITA would have naturally provided the heart rate data to the user
`in real-time.
`Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶ 68. Vock’s interchangeable use of “near real-time” and
`
`“real-time” to describe data displayed to a user while engaged in the activity is
`
`wholly consistent with the Federal Circuit’s and the Board’s construction, as
`
`discussed above.
`
`
`
`Fourth, PO argues that Vock does not contemplate the real-time display of
`
`performance data because Vock discloses one example in which performance data
`
`can be stored “for later retrieval.” Response, 25 (citing Vock (Ex. 1006) at 4:4-7).
`
`This isolated, alternative embodiment does not, however, negate Vock’s clear
`
`teachings that its disclosed sensing units “can provide real-time performance data to
`
`the user, via a connected display” and its disclosure that the Figure 27 embodiment
`
`provides performance data in real-time. Vock (Ex. 1006) at 5:65-68; 40:38-45.
`
`C. ALL GROUNDS
`
`i. Mr. Easttom’s dependent claim critique was effectively withdrawn in
`his deposition
`PO includes a final critique of the Petition’s mappings with respect to
`
`dependent claims 2-28 and 30-32, that relies entirely on Mr. Easttom’s conclusion
`
`that the Petition is deficient with respect to claim 20 because it fails to support the
`
`conclusion that “it would have been obvious to implement the heads-up display with
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`its own display processor.” Response, 26, citing Easttom Decl. (EX2001) at ¶ 26.
`
`However, Mr. Easttom reversed course entirely during his deposition, admitting the
`
`heads-up display would necessarily require its own graphics processor:
`
`Q: If we assume the eyeglasses are wireless – would they need some
`sort of a processor of their own to function?
`A: They would need something to at least – a graphics processor, not
`necessarily a data analysis processor or a data acquisition process, but
`a graphics processor simply to display pixels, either in a heads-up
`display, commonly called a HUD or an LCD or whatever. I would
`assume eyeglasses would want a heads-up display.
`Easttom Cross-Examination (Ex. 1027) at 86:25-87:11 (objections omitted).
`
`This testimony is consistent with Dr. Fyfe’s statement that a remote display
`
`would “necessarily include its own processor for processing the data to be
`
`displayed.” Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶ 72. PO offers no argument that a graphics
`
`processor does not satisfy the limitation in claim 20, which simply requires “at least
`
`one processor for processing acquired data in accordance with instructions stored in
`
`said memory of the display unit.” ’759 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 20.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner respectfully request that the Board find all of the challenged claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`BY: /s/Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
`Chris R. Schmidt, Reg. No. 63,982
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,736,759 to Stubbs (’759 Patent)
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Fyfe
`Exhibit 1003 File History of U.S. Patent 6,736,759 to Stubbs (’759 Patent File
`History)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 6,002,982 to Fry (’982 Patent)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent 6,466,232 to Newell et al. (’232 Patent)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 6,539,336 to Vock et al. (’336 Patent)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent 5,976,083 to Richardson et al. (’083 Patent)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent 6,149,602 to Arcelus (’602 Patent)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent 5,564,417 to Chance (’417 Patent)
`Exhibit 1010 PCT Publication WO 97/17598 to French et al. (French)
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent 3,797,010 to Adler et al. (’010 Patent)
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent 4,367,752 to Jimenez et al. (’752 Patent)
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent 5,394,879 to Gorman (’879 Patent)
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent 6,251,048 to Kaufman (’048 Patent)
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent 2,358,992 to Millikan (’992 Patent)
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent 5,653,367 to Abramson (’367 Patent)
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent 5,358,159 to Lundie (’159 Patent)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent D337,435 to Kaneko et al. (’435 Patent)
`Exhibit 1019 About Us – Innovations, Polar Electro.com, available at
`https://www.polar.com/us-
`en/about_polar/who_we_are/innovations
`Exhibit 1020 Nellcor Pulse Oximeter Product Information, Wood Library
`Museum,
`available
`at
`https://www.woodlibrarymuseum.org/museum/item/531/nellcor-
`pulse-oximeter
`Exhibit 1021 New
`available
`GPS.gov,
`Signals,
`Civil
`https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals
`Exhibit 1022 http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/91683c.htm
`Exhibit 1023 Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`Exhibit 1024 Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Times Corp., 1:06-cv-00677-MRB (S.D.
`Ohio) Markman Chart
`Exhibit 1025 Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 1:06-cv-00677-MRB (S.D.
`Ohio) Markman Order
`
`at
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`Exhibit 1026 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition,
`Oct. 1999
`Exhibit 1027 Scott Easttom Deposition Transcript
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00294
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT
`The undersigned certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24 that the foregoing
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, excluding any
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
