`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., HTC CORP.,
`HTC AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held on April 2, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, JOHN F.
`HORVATH, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER APPLE INC.:
`
`
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQUIRE
`CALMANN J. CLEMENTS, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL S. PARSONS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 N Plano Road, Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER LG ELECTRONICS INC.:
`
`
`BRADFORD C. SCHULZ, Ph.D.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5676
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHETAN BANSAL, ESQ.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`RYAN LOVELESS, ESQUIRE
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`JAMES ETHERIDGE, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY HUANG, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard, Suite 120
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 2,
`
`2019, commencing at 8:58 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Texas Regional Office, 207 S Houston Street, Dallas, Texas, 75202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE QUINN: We're here for the case Apple Inc. versus UNILOC
`2017 LLC. I'm going to call out the IPR numbers that are part of this
`hearing: IPR2018-00387, IPR2018-00389, IPR2018-00424,
`IPR2018-01028.
` And these IPRs concern three different patents: U.S. Patent No.
`7,653,508, U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723, and U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902.
` This is a consolidated hearing. There are various
` parties that are joined here in addition to Apple Inc. I'm
` going to now request that each entity states their
` appearance for the record, and if, during your introduction,
` you can also identify which IPR you are a party to.
` Let's start with petitioner, Apple.
` MR. EHMKE: Thank you, Your Honor. Andy Ehmke on
`behalf of Apple. With me is my colleague Mike Parsons, as
`well as Calmann Clements. I believe the other parties are
`here, as well. We are petitioners in all of the four
`proceedings.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. SCHULZ: Bradford Schulz. Backup counsel for
`LG. We are joined to the first three petitions for the '723,
`the '508, and the '902 patents.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, Chetan Bansal on behalf of
`Samsung Electronics. We're joined to IPR2018-00424, which is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`the first proceeding in the '902 patent.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` Now, patent owner, please state your appearance for
`the record.
` MR. MANGRUM: Good morning, Your Honor, and Your
`Honors attending remotely. My name is Brett Mangrum. I'll be representing
`the patent owner in all four matters and speaking on behalf of those patents.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` All right. I want to introduce the judges that are present here today.
`Judge Sally Medley and Sean O'Hanlon are on the left screen. They are
`presiding from the Madison Building in Alexandria, Virginia. And to the
`right on the screen is Judge John Horvath, who is obviously appearing
`remotely.
` Each side will have 60 minutes of total time to
` present their arguments. Petitioner will begin first, and
` after that, patent owner may respond.
` Each side can request rebuttal time. And when you
` first come up, you can tell me what that is. I will keep
` track of it on my phone. And you won't get any warnings as
` to when you're getting close, but you will hear the bell,
` and you will know that your time is up.
` We're not -- as usual, we're not allowing any
` speaking objections to interrupt your opponent's side, but
` if you have anything to note of your opponent's argument, you
` may do so during your argument time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` Demonstratives. If there are any shown today,
` they're only demonstratives, they're not evidence. So I
` don't know that there were any objections to the
` demonstratives. I didn't see any. And to the extent that
` those were presented, they -- you can speak your objections
` during your time if there -- if you have any.
` Are there any questions before we proceed?
` Okay. Both sides have -- they shook their heads
` "no", so we're going to start.
` Petitioner, you have the floor.
` MR. EHMKE: Make sure this is on. We had an issue
`with that last time.
` Thank you, again, Your Honors. What I would like to
`do is reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE QUINN: So your argument right now will be 50.
` MR. EHMKE: 50. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE QUINN: Just remember that they cannot see --
`I don't see you projecting anything, but they have the
`slides --
` MR. EHMKE: Right.
` JUDGE QUINN: -- in their computer, so if you can
`call out whatever exhibits or slide numbers so they can
`follow you.
` MR. EHMKE: I certainly will. Certainly will.
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` MR. EHMKE: And I will be referring heavily to the
`demonstratives, and I'll guide the judges through that as
`best as I can.
` Again, my name is Andy Ehmke. I'll quickly move
` ahead directly to Slide 2 of our demonstratives where we
` laid out our discussion summary. We focused it on the
` different issues and tried to identify where we thought the
` issue was most relevant with respect to each patent in the
` proceedings and laid them out here. We'll actually refer to
` this throughout the proceeding to help guide the discussion
` along and answer any questions the judges might have.
` Turning to Slide 3. We want to discuss first the
` dominant axis issue we think that pertains most heavily to
` the '508 patent and the '723 patent.
` In reference to the dominant axis, we'll go to
` Slide 4 where we've laid out what we think are some
` exemplary claims involving the dominant axis.
` In the upper half we see Claim 1 from the '508
` patent. We're assigning a dominant axis and then updating
` that dominant axis as the orientation of the sensor changes.
` And then the '723 patent we're going to assign a
` dominant axis with respect to gravity based on an
` orientation of the sensor.
` So as we think about the dominant axis issue, as we
` move to Slide 5, we have some example language from the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` specification that we thought that was helpful when we're
` talking about the dominant axis --
` JUDGE QUINN: Let me go back to your previous slide.
` MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Slide 4.
` MR. EHMKE: Slide 4.
` JUDGE QUINN: Something that strikes me here is that
`Claim 1 of the '508 patent just says "assigning a dominant
`axis", whereas Claim 1 of the '723 patent goes further
`describing how that "assigning a dominant axis is with
`respect to gravity".
` MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: So Claim 1 of the '508 patent does not
`have that "with respect to gravity" phrase, so can you point
`us to -- or can you tell us with the "with respect to
`gravity" phrase, why we should include that in the term when
`Claim 1 of the '508 patent does not have that?
` MR. EHMKE: Sure. And I think this stems to the
`heart of the issue with respect to the claim construction of
`the dominant axis.
` We are not seeking to limit the claim construction
`of the dominant axis to be solely and only gravity as a
`requirement, we're simply saying that there's embodiments and
`disclosures within the specification that do say that you can
`take into account the effect of gravity when figuring out the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`assignment of the dominant axis, but we're not saying we are
`excluding all the other embodiments.
` We're simply saying that because we have embodiments
`disclosed in the specification that rely on the use of
`gravity, that we think within the scope of the metes and
`bounds of assigning a dominant axis, we should not be
`excluding those embodiments, we should be considering that
`those embodiments are within the scope of the assigning of
`the dominant axis.
` And so while the '723 specifically requires
` gravity within its context of the dominant axis, Claim 1
` of the '508 patent doesn't have that, it's even broader than
` that and could encompass other things. We're just saying
` that when we look at the specification, there are
` embodiments that disclose using gravity to figure out the
` dominant axis, and we think those should be within the scope
` of the construction, not to the exclusion of other things,
` just that it's part of the construction as we look at the
` different embodiments.
` JUDGE QUINN: So if we were to take that to mean
`that the gravitational influence is an example, then would
`it be more appropriate then to revise the claim construction
`to call out that the gravitational influence is an example of
`how the dominant axis is assigned?
` MR. EHMKE: Yes. And we attempted to do that, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`perhaps it was clumsy on our part, Your Honor.
` As I turn to Slide 5 in our language in the petition
`at the bottom here, we said that it would "include the axis
`most influenced by gravity". Again, we weren't trying to
`exclude any other embodiments, we just think that it's an
`example of it.
` And so I don't have any dispute, Your Honor, if the
`claim construction were "a dominant axis would include as an
`example the axis most influenced by gravity", because that
`would align fully with what our intention was with our
`proposed construction.
` JUDGE QUINN: And that would call to question what
`is a dominant axis in the instances in which it's one where
`there is something else influencing the dominant axis, other
`than gravity.
` MR. EHMKE: Well, we see there's examples from the
`specification of, when we're thinking about the dominant
`axis, we're thinking about the axis that we're going to be
`using for the purposes of analyzing the motion criteria.
` So there could be other reasons or rationales for
`selecting a dominant axis when you've got a plurality of
`axes. It could just be something that's vertical, it could
`be a particular arrangement, but again, we see that there are
`examples in the specification where gravity, it's taken into
`account, and we think that for purposes of resolving the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`dispute and the applicability of the prior art, that that
`embodiment disclosed in the specification is sufficient to
`ascertain the patentability of these claims.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` MR. EHMKE: And so that really addresses the
`discussion on Claim 5 -- or Slide 5, as well as Slide 6.
` So I will then turn to the application of the prior
`art and our discussion on that on Slide 7, Your Honors, where
`we're discussing Pasolini's teachings.
` In Pasolini, we have an accelerometer inside a
`device where it describes here in the section above the
`highlight, the accelerometer could be equipped with a number
`of axes of measurement, including an example of three
`mutually orthogonal axes, a typical three-axis
`accelerometer.
` And then it describes that in an embodiment, we're
`going to take the algorithm from the processing unit 3, which
`is the step detection algorithm that's disclosed elsewhere in
`Pasolini, and we're going to take that algorithm and apply it
`to this three-axis environment, and what we're going to do
`when we have three axes is we want to figure out what the
`orientation of the device is.
` And so we're going to first identify the main
`vertical axis, we're going to take a series of acceleration
`samples. Each time we get an acceleration sample, we're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`going to figure out which axis is the main vertical axis at
`that point in time to take into account the variation of the
`orientation of the device.
` Once we have the main vertical axis, we're going to
`use that as our axis of detection. You see that in the
`highlighted section there. We're going to use that as our
`axis of detection for step detection.
` And so we've said that that's the assignment of the
`dominant axis of -- let's figure out which axis is the main
`vertical axis, and going to have that be our axis of
`detection for purposes of step detection.
` We are updating that over time because we're doing
`this at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample.
` So as the device moves and we get new acceleration
`samples out of your three-axis accelerometer, we're going to
`identify the orientation by figuring out which axis is the
`main vertical axis, and whenever we do that, we then figure
`out -- assign that as our axis of detection for purposes of
`step detection.
` And all of this is done -- it says it there in the
`middle -- we're going to do this on account of gravity.
`We're figuring out what the main vertical axis is.
` So this is the continuously determining orientation,
`assigning the dominant axis as the axis of detection for step
`detection, and we're going to be updating it every time we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`get a new sample. It follows the claim exactly, Your Honors.
` Then turning to Slide 8, we want to briefly address
` patent owner's counterargument to this scenario, what patent
` owner argued about this fixed vertical axis scenario
` within Pasolini.
` And we really think this is a ships passing in the
` night issue. The Board addressed it in the Institution
` Decision, but we want to discuss it again here.
` Pasolini describes multiple scenarios. It describes
` a fixed vertical axis, but it also describes what we
` discussed, three virtually orthogonal axes -- it's always a
` tongue twister to say -- three mutually orthogonal axes.
` And then in the scenario where we're dealing with
` three mutually orthogonal axes, it specifically says that we
` want to figure out which is the main vertical axis.
` The discussion about the fixed vertical axis
` embodiment in Pasolini is not what was really relied on for
` figuring out the dominant axis.
` And on Slide 9, we show our discussion from the
` petition where we specifically said we're taking the step
` counting technique and applying it to the main vertical axis
` embodiment. And again, we cited to this specific section of
` Pasolini that we've been discussing here today.
` In this particular embodiment, we have a three-axis
` accelerometer. We would then apply the counting technique.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` And this environment explains how you want to do that. You
` want to identify the main vertical axis, have that be the
` axis of detection for step detection, and then you're going
` to update it at each acceleration sample.
` And if there weren't any other questions on the
` dominant axis, I will move to the next issue.
` JUDGE QUINN: On the '723 patent, you rely on the
`combination of Fabio and Pasolini, but for the other patent
`you do not; is that right?
` MR. EHMKE: That is right, Your Honor, and I'll
`doublecheck the arrangement.
` That is correct. In the '508 patent, we're relying
`on Fabio -- or excuse me -- on Pasolini as a single reference
`103 for several claims.
` On Fabio as a single reference obviousness for some
`of the claims.
` And the '723 patent, we're relying on the
`combination of Fabio and Pasolini.
` JUDGE QUINN: In the '723 case, you asserted the
`reason to combine the Fabio and Pasolini references to
`improve step detection.
` I believe some of the opinion evidence you submitted
`also called out that Fabio was concerned with preventing
`false positives, and I think patent owner has argued that's
`not a reason.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` Do you have any arguments today on that regard?
` MR. EHMKE: Sure. So on the combination of Fabio
`and Pasolini, what we set forth, if we follow the law portion
`of it, was applying the reasons to combine of a known
`technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
` So we had the known technique of Pasolini's
`algorithm of recognizing steps with Fabio's
`pedometer/accelerometer system as the known device.
` And what the thing -- the reason for this
`combination is we -- as we set forth in the petition, and had our
`expert declaration discuss -- was the point of it was to
`reduce errors and improve the quality of acceleration signal
`measurements to improve the step detection.
` These are applications that were filed by the same
`individual. We broke his name into two pieces. The inventor
`is Fabio Pasolini. We've used his first name for one
`reference and his last name for the second reference. They
`are filed by him on the same day, they're just two sides of
`the same coin, Your Honor, from this inventor.
` So we think a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`looking at one of these references, would be inclined to look
`at another reference in the same space by the same inventor
`on the same topic to improve it in the specific way set forth
`in the respective documents.
` Turning to Slide 10, we introduce the cadence window
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` issue.
` This issue likewise applies to the '508 and '723
` patents.
` Continuing on to Slide 11, we again have our example
` claims to highlight the issue.
` In the '508 patent, we see that we are identifying a
` number of periodic motions within appropriate cadence
` windows.
` And then in the '723 patent we are looking for
` criteria and detecting that within a cadence window.
` So there's been some dispute about the cadence
` window in the prior art, but I think we should look at, on
` Slide 12, what the patent is describing in its specification
` with respect to a cadence window.
` We have at the top of the slide one of the quotes
` from the specification that describes a cadence window as,
` "A window of time since the last step was counted as the
` detected new step."
` And we see "step" is referenced multiple times here,
` and so we thought it would be helpful to discuss "steps" in
` the context of this specification.
` And so what we've done there in the bottom half of
` Slide 12 is we've zoomed in on Figure 2 from the '508 patent
` where it's showing the acceleration waves and determining
` steps.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` And to walk you through the understanding of that,
` Your Honor, we're on a timeline moving left to right. We
` see a step begins on the left there. We see it --
` acceleration signals go up to form a peak, we see they come
` down to form a valley, and then come back up, and it's
` marked as step 217.
` There's a duration of time that's occurring as we
` receive those series of acceleration signals, and we go
` reach a peak, we reach a valley, we come back up, that's
` defined as a step.
` We see that happen again there from 217, forming
` step 232. We see a peak go up, we come down for a little
` squiggle in our valley, then we come up back up and we have
` step 32 [sic]. Likewise for step 233.
` We're looking for a particular signature. We're
` looking for this peak and this valley of our acceleration
` signals for there to be a step.
` So now if we zoom out on this figure to see the rest
` of it, as we turn to Slide 13, again, we see the language
` from the specification, and we see the figure on the
` right-hand side.
` Hopefully, you can see in your version, you can
` still see the 217, 232, and 233 steps marked there.
` And with that, if you go to the bottom of that
` slide, you'll see where we've marked the cadence windows 240
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` and 255.
` And so now, if you follow the timeline left to right
` of the steps and cadence window, we see what the
` specification is describing.
` We see step 217 forming with the peak and the
` valley, and boom, we now have step 217.
` So now we want to have a cadence window arising
` from that. We've detected the step, and now we want a
` cadence window, since we've detected that step, in order to
` look for the next step. And so we have our two-step 217, we
` then have cadence window 240.
` And now within cadence window 240, we see its
` demarcation, the dotted lines going up vertically, and we
` see that the recognition of step 232 is happening within
` that cadence window 240.
` Again, this is an iterative process, so we've
` detected step 232, and so now we're going to open the next
` cadence window, the second cadence window 255.
` We then follow the next step that's happening. We
` see the acceleration signals with the peak, and the valley,
` and we see that 233 is detected within the cadence window.
` And so as we think about the cadence window, we
` refer back to the specification and the language within it.
` We see this iterative sequence of a step, followed by a
` cadence window that's positioned somewhere along the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` timeline after that in order to detect the next step.
` JUDGE QUINN: Why isn't the definition of a “cadence
`window” something broader than what you've proposed since
`Column 3, lines 65 to 66 seems to have another definition of
`“cadence window” as, "The allowable time window for steps to
`occur."
` MR. EHMKE: We looked at this, Your Honor. As we
`look at the specification, we had this "is" language there,
`"the cadence window is a window of time." And so out of an
`abundance of caution, when we proposed our construction, we
`wanted to be sure that we covered something that perhaps was
`more narrower, if you will, to make --
` JUDGE QUINN: More narrower?
` MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor. And the reason we did --
`that is on the fly, Your Honor -- more narrow -- that we
`wanted to be sure that, given that language in the
`specification, we wanted to be clear to the Panel that even
`with this narrower scope, that the prior art was going to fit
`within that. What we didn't want to do was propose something
`too broad or something the Board may have felt too broad, and
`then have it narrowed down, and then all of a sudden our art
`wouldn't fall within it.
` We are not opposed to a broader construction, we
`just wanted to be sure that when we aligned our prior art,
`that it was very clear that the prior art even hit a narrower
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`scope of what the cadence window might be.
` So with this in hand of -- this iterative process of a
` step and then opening the cadence window and detecting, we
` want to turn to Slide 14, Your Honor, is where we were
` looking at the prior art.
` And what we've done here across Slides 14, 15, and
` 16 is create a sequence to follow along with the Fabio
` reference's teaching with respect to the cadence window, and
` so I will try to walk you through the sequence and try not
` to shuffle back and forth too much.
` So as we look at Slide 14, we see that what Fabio is
` doing is referencing to its steps as this variable K.
` There's a lot of variables happening here, and I'll try to
` keep those straight as well as I can.
` So we have a step happening as K-1, that will be the
` immediately preceding step. Of course, K-2 is the step
` preceding that.
` But we have the immediately preceding step K-1.
` This has been a step that's been detected and counted.
` So what does Fabio disclose? What happens is when
` we have a step detected, we then are going to open what it
` calls a validation interval, what it uses as a phrase "TV".
` And you see that appearing in Slide 15.
` So we've detected step K-1, we then use a
` mathematical formula -- that we'll discuss later -- we use
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` this mathematical formula to add validation interval TV.
` This is the cadence window.
` And now we're going to ask, do we detect a step
` within this validation interval TV?
` As we move to Slide 16, we see that step K is
` occurring within this validation interval TV. There's the
` TR(K) variable that's appearing there right below the step
` K. That's the time of recognition of step K.
` So we're detecting step K, and then we're going to
` look and see if step K did, in fact, land within this
` cadence window.
` We think this is a cadence window for detecting
` steps. This is a cadence window since the last step was
` detected, and we're detecting the new step K in this window.
` Of course, it will continue on for K+1. We would open a new
` window TV, and then detect K+1.
` Now, one of the points of contention is the language
` that we've framed at top -- is the phrase "the last step
` recognized is validated if". And patent owner argued that,
` in this context, the last step recognized would be the
` immediately preceding step.
` As the Institution Decision recognized, that's not
` factually supported within Fabio, and we want to explain
` why.
` As we go to Slide 17, we see the sequence and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
` process flow that's happening within Fabio as the sequence
` of steps are occurring.
` I will start at block 200 at the top. That's
` receiving one of the acceleration signals. Then it proceeds
` through and it gets to block 225 that we've highlighted.
` In block 225, it asks do we recognize this as a
` step? Is this matching an acceleration pattern that we're
` expecting? For example, do we have our peak and our valley
` yet?
` If the answer is "no", if it's not a sequence we
` recognize as a step, we loop back around to get a new
` acceleration sample in block 200.
` And now we'll repeat, not recognizing a step until
` we have a sequence of accelerations that does match our
` expected profile of a step.
` When that does happen, we now recognize this
` acceleration sample that's just come in, we've plotted it
` out, it looks like a step, and we recognize this example as
` a step.
` When we recognize it as a step -- yes, Your Honor.
` Do you have --
` JUDGE QUINN: Yes, I have a question.
` MR. EHMKE: Okay.
` JUDGE QUINN: Is the preceding step, when you look
`at Slide 16, the preceding step, is that preceding step
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00387 (Patent 7,653,508 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00389 (Patent 8,712,723 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00424 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01028 (Patent 7,881,902 B1)
`
`always a valid step, or could that be an invalid step?
` MR. EHMKE: If you're referring to the instant of
`recognition of the immediately preceding step K-1, Yo
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
