`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND GARMIN USA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00564
`Patent No. 6,059,576
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I, Andrew C. Singer, have been retained by counsel for Petitioners as a
`
`technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regards to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,059,576 (“the ’576 patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are
`
`claims 20-26, 29, 104-107, 110, 113-122, 126-128, 134-138, and 175. My
`
`opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I
`
`am being compensated at an hourly rate of $500 for my analysis and testimony in
`
`this case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• EX1001 – U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 to Brann (“the ’576 patent”);
`• EX1003 – File History of Reexamination Request No. 90/013,201 (“’576
`patent reexamination file history”);
`• EX1004 – U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al. (“Stewart”);
`• EX1006 – U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III (“Rush”);
`• EX1007 – U.S. Patent No. 5,197,489 to Conlan (“Conlan”);
`• EX1008 – U.S. Patent No. 5,474,083 to Church et al. (“Church”);
`• EX1009 – U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et al. (“Richardson”);
`• EX1011 – J.R.W. Morris, “Accelerometry – A Technique for the
`Measurement of Human Body Movements,” J. Biomechanics, Vol. 6,
`Pergamon Press (1973, pp. 729-736) (“Morris”);
`• EX1012 – U.S. Patent No. 3,797,010 to Adler et al. (“Adler”);
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`• EX1013 – U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 to Gesink et al. (“Gesink”);
`• EX1014 – UK Patent Application No. GB 2,225,459A to Holder
`(“Holder”);
`• EX1015 – C. Verplaetse, “Inertial proprioceptive devices: Self-motion-
`sensing toys and tools,” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, Nos. 3&4 (1996,
`pp. 639-650) (“Verplaetse”);
`• EX1016 – Alan Freedman, The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, The
`Computer Language Company Inc. (1996) (“Freedman”);
`• EX1017 – Robert C Cantu, Head injuries in sport, Br J Sports Med 30
`(289-296; 1996) (“Cantu”);
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering, where I hold a Fox Family endowed Professorship. I also
`
`serve as Director of the Technology Entrepreneur Center for the College of
`
`Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1990; a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992; and a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1996.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1990, I have been active in the signal processing and
`
`communications
`
`fields.
`
`
`
`I have authored and/or co-authored numerous
`
`publications, including books and refereed journal publications and conference
`
`articles on the topic of signal processing and communication systems and devices.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 3
`
`
`
`A focus of many of these publications is on methods for improving efficiency,
`
`reducing power and preserving battery life in such systems.
`
`7.
`
`I have designed, built, and patented various components of
`
`communication and signal processing systems. These include various radio-
`
`frequency, SONAR, LIDAR, air-acoustic and underwater acoustic signal
`
`processing systems as well as wire-line, wireless, optical and underwater acoustic
`
`communication systems. An important aspect in many of these systems is the
`
`design of low power systems and the use of algorithms and methods to reduce
`
`power and preserve battery life.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses in signal
`
`processing, and communication systems. For example, I have taught Digital Signal
`
`Processing and Embedded DSP Laboratory classes. Additional examples of
`
`courses I have taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign include:
`
`Advanced Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal
`
`Processing Laboratory; Probability with Engineering Applications; Random
`
`Processes; Optical Communication Systems; Advanced Lectures in Engineering
`
`Entrepreneurship; Embedded DSP Laboratory; Developing Design Thinking;
`
`Technology Commercialization; and Senior Design Laboratory. I have also
`
`overseen numerous PhD and Master’s students researching topics related to signal
`
`processing and communication systems.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I was the co-founder and CEO of Intersymbol Communications, Inc., a
`
`communications component manufacturer focused on the development of signal
`
`processing-enhanced components used in optical communication networks.
`
`Intersymbol Communications, Inc. was acquired by Finisar Corporation, the
`
`world's largest supplier of optical communication modules and subsystems.
`
`10.
`
`I was appointed the Director of the Technology Entrepreneur Center
`
`(TEC) in the College of Engineering, where I direct a wide range of
`
`entrepreneurship activities. The TEC directs the campus-wide Illinois Innovation
`
`Prize, celebrating our most innovative students on campus, as well as our annual
`
`Cozad New Venture Competition. I am also the Principal Investigator for the
`
`National Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps Sites program at the University of
`
`Illinois, working with faculty and student startup companies.
`
`11. My research and commercial experience led to my authoring of
`
`numerous papers. I have authored over 200 papers on digital signal processing and
`
`communication systems, several of which were voted "Best Paper of the Year" by
`
`technical committees of the IEEE. Citing these and other contributions, I was
`
`elected Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE")
`
`“for contributions to signal processing techniques for digital communication.” I
`
`was also selected as a Distinguished Lecturer of the Signal Processing Society.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 5
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I hold ten granted U.S. patents, all in the field of communication
`
`systems.
`
`13.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience related to signal
`
`processing and communication systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix A, which includes a
`
`list of all publications I have authored within the last ten years.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`15.
`
`have been informed that the ’576 Patent has expired and that, in such a case, the
`
`words of a claim are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have
`
`been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`(November 1997).
`
`16.
`
`I have also been informed that the implicit or inherent disclosures of a
`
`prior art reference may anticipate the claimed invention. Specifically, if a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that
`
`the claimed subject matter is necessarily present in a prior art reference, then the
`
`prior art reference may “anticipate” the claim. Therefore, a claim is “anticipated”
`
`by the prior art if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly
`
`or inherently, in a single item of prior art.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 6
`
`
`
`17. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on
`
`an invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether prior art references render a claim obvious, counsel has
`
`informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3)
`
`the level of skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight.
`
`Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done through the eyes of one of skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`18.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to
`
`consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in
`
`the art would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications,
`
`journal articles, industry standards, product literature and documentation, texts
`
`describing competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard
`
`setting organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of
`
`the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 7
`
`
`
`range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the
`
`type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that the United States Supreme Court’s most
`
`recent statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was
`
`stated in 2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`Thus, the teaching suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim
`
`is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid.
`
` I further understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
`
`demands known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 8
`
`
`
`need not be sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences
`
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I
`
`understand that the prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words,
`
`the prior art need not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the
`
`problem addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references
`
`themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. Under the
`
`KSR obviousness standard, common sense is important and should be considered.
`
`Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I
`
`further understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
`
`obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 9
`
`
`
`invention. I understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the
`
`claim must be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people
`
`working in the field at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems
`
`faced in the art and the solutions found to those problems, and (3) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that at least the following rationales may support
`
`a finding of obviousness:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to
`implement;
`If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claim;
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 10
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior-art reference or to
`combine prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I have further been informed that secondary considerations evidence is
`
`only relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art
`
`features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 11
`
`
`
`that Patent Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A.
`Background of the Technology
`
`26.
`
`Inertial sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, have been
`
`used to monitor human motion for several decades. For example, researchers
`
`began using accelerometers to measure human movement as early as the 1950s.
`
`EX1011, Morris at 729 (“Many bioengineers involved with the study of human
`
`movement have at some time attempted to use an accelerometer for that
`
`quantitative measure of that movement. Some of the attempts have been reported
`
`(Saunders et al., 1953; Gage, 1964) . . .”).
`
`27. By the early 1970s, accelerometers attached to the human leg were
`
`being used to measure movements in multiple degrees of freedom for purposes of
`
`gait analysis. Id. at 731 (“Accelerometers of the type shown in Fig. 2 are used to
`
`obtain data on the accelerations of the leg between the knee and ankle . . . Five
`
`accelerometers are mounted on the perspex platform shown in Fig. 3. . . The
`
`platform is mounted over the flat, antero-medial surface of the tibia.”). As shown
`
`in the following figure, the sensor platform was small enough so as to not impede
`
`the subject’s movements:
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 12
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`28. The signals output by the accelerometers were stored in a portable
`
`recorder held by the subject and subsequently analyzed by a computer. Id. at 731
`
`(“Signals from the accelerometers can be recorded either on a portable subject-
`
`carried tape recorder . . . . The entire analysis of the signals is done on a small
`
`interactive digital computer with analogue input facilities and a visual display.”).
`
`29. By the 1970s, “jogging computers,” such as that described by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 3,797,010 to Adler et al., were also being developed “for measuring and
`
`indicating physical exercise achievement attained through exercises, for example,
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`walking, running and/or jogging in place or over a distance course in accordance
`
`with a predetermined exercise regimen.” EX1012, Adler, at Abstract.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`30. Adler’s portable device included “a digital computer to which is fed
`
`the output from an electromechanical sensor adapted to generate an electrical
`
`impulse in response to each step taken by an individual while walking, running or
`
`jogging at or above a predetermined rate.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2.
`
`31. Adler’s device “accumulated” input data integrated across a measured
`
`exercise and “compared the level of the integral to a pre-programmed exercise
`
`regimen schedule.” Id. at 3:8-10. When the compared level reached a user-defined
`
`“threshold level,” a signal could be presented to the exerciser to help “avoid the
`
`possibility of inadvertently over-exercising.” Id. at 3:11-25, 4:37-57.
`
`32. Versions of human movement monitoring devices available in the
`
`1990s could sense displacement from walking as well as rotation of orientation in
`
`order to determine if a threshold amount of “veer” had been surpassed. EX1013,
`
`Gesink at 2:45-56, 13:53-59, 16:16-31. Particularly, the device taught by Gesink
`
`allowed for a user to enter a custom level of allowed veer, and announced the time
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`at which that allowed level was exceeded. Id. at 13:53-59. Gesink’s device also
`
`included memory to “facilitate the storage of information regarding the use” of the
`
`device “so this data can later be downloaded to an external storage device.” Id. at
`
`18:62-67.
`
`33. By this time, such storage of data captured regarding the state of a user
`
`was well known to persons of ordinary skill. For instance, devices known since
`
`the 1980s, such as that described in GB 2225459 to Holder, monitored human
`
`physical conditions such as temperature, respiration rate, and oxygen level, and
`
`store information in non-volatile memory when a preset alarm limit is crossed.
`
`EX1014, Holder at pp.1-2. Further, Holder’s device stored real-time clock data
`
`alongside the sensed physical data for analysis, thus “time stamping” the data. Id.
`
`at p.1.
`
`34.
`
`In 1996, Verplaetse proposed a motion-sensing “proprioceptive
`
`device” that could be incorporated into common objects such as shoes. EX1015,
`
`Verplaetse at 642. Verplaetse’s proprioceptive device included accelerometers and
`
`gyroscopes for sensing motion in six degrees of freedom. Id. at Fig. 2. The sensor
`
`signals were input into a microcontroller that “either stores the sensor data for later
`
`use, or it performs some type of real-time analysis and invokes the appropriate
`
`output.” Id. at 643.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 16
`
`
`
`Id. at 644.
`
`35. When incorporated into shoes, for example, Verplaetse envisioned “a
`
`proprioceptive shoe system [that] could not only tell its wearer how far and fast he
`
`or she is walking, but could also diagnose gait abnormalities or alert the wearer
`
`that it is time to replace the shoe soles.” Id. at 642.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Therefore, by 1997, the field of portable, motion sensing devices was
`
`well developed, and devices that both recorded the sensed data and analyzed the
`
`sensed data for purposes of alerting the user to user defined events were well
`
`known.
`
`B.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`37.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ’576 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, which
`
`counsel has informed me is November 21, 1997, I considered several factors,
`
`including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention and
`
`considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a person
`
`with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer
`
`Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in embedded signal
`
`processing systems or a related field.
`
`39. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. In my 25 years
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`active in the industry, I have developed and performed research related to many
`
`embedded signal processing systems, including systems for United States Army
`
`and Navy for the purpose of detecting and tracking airborne, land-based, and
`
`underwater objects. These included self-contained systems for use on the
`
`battlefield, as well as embedded systems that were connected to aircraft and subsea
`
`vehicles. I have also developed systems that employed SONAR, LIDAR, and
`
`ultrasound for sensing, communications, and localization of and between objects. I
`
`have taught courses in embedded processing, including Embedded Digital Signal
`
`Processing, Digital Signal Processing Laboratory, and senior Design, each of
`
`which cover aspects of the design, construction, and testing of such embedded
`
`electronics and signal processing systems. Thus, I was at least a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’576 Patent.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`Claim 107 – “continuously storing said movement data after
`battery power is lost from a power source”
`
`40. Claim 107 recites, “[t]he method of claim 20, wherein said storing
`
`comprises continuously storing said movement data after battery power is lost from
`
`a power source of the portable, self-contained movement measuring device.”
`
`Petitioners have asked me to opine on the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`limitation “continuously storing said movement data after battery power is lost
`
`from a power source.” It is my understanding that, in this proceeding, claim terms
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the
`
`language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record.
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that issued claim 107 was added as claim 122
`
`during a reexamination proceeding. EX1003, ’576 Patent Reexamination File
`
`History at p. 190. Patent owner cited to the col. 5, lines 47-51 of the ’576 patent
`
`specification as providing the written description for this claim. Id. at p. 210.
`
`42. This portion of the ’576 patent specification states, “In a preferred
`
`embodiment, the memory is electrically erasable programmable read-only memory
`
`(EEPROM) so that, in the event the device should lose power, the information
`
`recorded in memory 50 will not be lost.” EX1001, ’576 Patent at 5:47-51.
`
`43. EEPROM were well known by persons of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`the ’576 patent as a type of memory that holds its contents without power. See
`
`e.g., EX1016, Freedman at p. 276 (“EEPROM . . . A memory chip that holds its
`
`contents without power.”).
`
`44. Based on the plain language of the claim and the relevant disclosure of
`
`the ’576 patent specification, a PHOSITA at the time of the ’576 patent would
`
`understand that the limitation “continuously storing said movement data after
`
`battery power is lost from a power source” must at least include “storing
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 20
`
`
`
`movement data in a memory that does not lose its contents after battery power is
`
`lost from a power source.”
`
`D. Stewart Inherently Discloses a Real-Time Clock
`
`45.
`
`It is my understanding that certain claims of the ’576 patent, including
`
`claim 20, require a real-time clock. Petitioners have asked me to opine on whether
`
`or not a real-time clock is an inherent feature of Stewart’s disclosure (EX1004).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that Stewart’s monitoring device
`
`necessarily includes real-time clock.
`
`46. Stewart describes “[a] system designed to measure and record in real
`
`time data relating to translational and angular acceleration of an individual’s head
`
`during normal sporting activity.” EX1004, Stewart at Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`Stewart’s system includes a monitoring device incorporated into conventional
`
`sporting gear, such as a helmet. Id. at 4:45-46 (“The HAT is designed as a
`
`standard component of otherwise conventional sporting gear, in particular the
`
`helmet.”), Fig. 2A. The monitoring device includes at least three orthogonal
`
`accelerometers that detect motion in three dimensions and output analog readings
`
`to an A/D converter. Id. at 6:13-16 (“It is found that a minimum of three
`
`orthogonal accelerometers 10-12 are sufficient to provide data which corresponds
`
`directly to motion of the head in three dimensional space . . . .”); 8:40-43 (“The
`
`output of the first accelerometer 10 is input to channel 0 of the A/D converter 46,
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 21
`
`
`
`the output of the second accelerometer 11 is input to channel 1, and the output of
`
`the third accelerometer 12 is input to channel 2.”), Fig. 1.
`
`47. A “processor 52 controls the storage of the data from the A/D
`
`converter 46 to the data storage 51.” Id. at 8:58-59.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`48.
`
`“The processor 52 comprises any conventional processor device,
`
`including a microcontroller or a microprocessor, and controls the operation of the
`
`HAT system.” Id. at 8:59-62.
`
`49. Stewart also discloses that the processor executes time-based, user-
`
`defined commands that “set the general parameters of the data storage operation of
`
`the HAT.” Id. at 11:53-54; see also, id. at 11:30-33 (“Storage of data from the
`
`outputs of the accelerometers 10-12 is started and stopped by the processor 52 via
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`commands transmitted through the serial control interface 42.”). For the reasons
`
`explained below, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’576
`
`patent would recognize Stewart’s disclosure of user-defined time commands as
`
`necessarily requiring the processor to access a real-time clock to determine when
`
`to start and stop recording data.
`
`50. Stewart discloses the following exemplary time-based commands that
`
`cause the processor to perform time-based functions:
`
`• “‘1 SET_MS’ : sets the sample time to 1 ms. (Note that other sampling rates
`
`greater or less than 1 ms sampling can be implemented.)” Id. at 12:20-22
`
`• “‘n R_INTERVAL C!’ : sets the number of minutes n between each round
`
`of data being collected.” Id. at 12:31-32.
`
`• “‘GO’: prompts the user for the present time and start time for data
`
`collection.” Id. at 12:43-44.
`
`51. Regarding the “GO” command, the a skilled artisan would understand
`
`that the processor could not perform the function of setting the present time to a
`
`time provided by the user without a real time clock. Once the user sets the present-
`
`time, if a start time of data collection is to be inferred, by necessity a real-time
`
`clock must be present to measure that start time. In other words, this command
`
`inherently requires the capability for real-time measurement, including the
`
`capability to know the real time against which to measure the start time for data
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 23
`
`
`
`collection. Thus, a person having ordinary skill would expect and understand that
`
`Stewart’s processor necessarily accesses a real-time clock to implement this
`
`command.
`
`52. Regarding the “1 SET_MS” command, for example, the processor 52
`
`in Stewart’s monitoring device would necessarily require a real-time timer in order
`
`to determine when 1 millisecond has passed and data received from the A/D
`
`converter should be sampled. Additionally, once the time has been set by the user
`
`(as discussed with reference to the GO command), the real-time timer would
`
`become a real-time clock.
`
`53. Regarding the “n R_INTERVAL C!” command, the processor 52
`
`would necessarily require a real-time timer in order to determine if n minutes have
`
`passed between data collection intervals. And again, once the time has been set by
`
`the user (as discussed with reference to the GO command), the real-time timer
`
`would become a real-time clock.
`
`54. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`
`Stewart’s disclosure of a user programming the processor to start and stop data
`
`collection at specific times inherently discloses a real-time clock.
`
`55. Alternatively, it would have, at a minimum, been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’576 patent to include a real-time
`
`clock as part of Stewart’s monitoring device for all of the above reasons. As
`
`IPR2018-00564
`Garmin EX1010 Page 24
`
`
`
`discussed above, the processor must be able to set the present time and keep track
`
`of time in order to implement the user-defined commands disclosed by Stewart.
`
`Accessing a real-time clock would have been an obvious and predictable way of
`
`enabling the processor to determine the current time thereby allowing it to compare
`
`the current time to the start/stop times dictated by the user-defined time commands.
`
`Therefore, a skilled artisan would be motivated to include a real-time clock in
`
`order to enable the processor to perform the disclosed time-based commands.
`
`E. Obvious to Combine Stewart and Rush
`
`1.
`
`Claim 20
`
`a.
`
`interpreting, using a microprocessor included in the
`portable, self-contained movement measuring device,
`said physical movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters and a real-time clock
`
`56. Claim 20 recites the limitation, “interpreting, using a microprocessor
`
`included in the portable, self-contained movement measuring device, said physical
`
`movement data based on user-defined operational parameters and a real-time
`
`clock.” As discussed above, Stewart’s monitoring device includes a processor 52
`
`that receives accelerometer data from an A/D converter. See, ¶¶46-48. The
`
`processor may interpret the accelerometer data by comparing it to a