UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00564
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 01
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00564
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 01
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, do hereby declare:
`
`
`
`1. My name is Vijay K. Madisetti, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`LoganTree, LP (“LoganTree”) as a technical expert in the above-captioned case.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions in regards to the Patent
`
`Owner Response with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ‘576 Patent”) in
`
`response to the IPR Petition submitted by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin
`
`USA, Inc. (“Garmin”). 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.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (EX1001)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al. (EX1004) (“Stewart”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III (EX1006) (“Rush”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,197,489 to Conlan (EX1007) (“Conlan”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,474,083 to Church et al. (EX1008) (“Church”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et al. (EX1009) (“Richardson”)
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“Pet”)
`
` Declaration of Dr. Andrew C. Singer (EX1010) (“Declaration”)
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 02
`
`
`
` Transcript of Deposition Testimony of Dr. Andrew C. Singer
`
`(“Transcript”)
`
` Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Institution Decision”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS
`
`3. My qualifications
`
`to
`
`testify about
`
`the patent-in-suit, relevant
`
`technology, and the prior art are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix 1. My CV includes my educational background and
`
`work history.
`
`4.
`
`Briefly, I have over thirty years of experience as an electrical and
`
`computer engineer in industry, education, and consulting. I have served as an expert
`
`witness in intellectual property cases and other matters. A list of my prior testimony
`
`is included in my CV attached as Appendix 1.
`
`5.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. I received the Demetri Angelakos
`
`Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of California, Berkeley
`
`and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`6.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a Professor in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been active in the areas of wireless
`
`communications, sensors, internet of things (IoT), digital signal processing,
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 03
`
`
`
`
`
`integrated circuit design (analog & digital), software engineering, system-level
`
`
`
`design methodologies and tools, and software systems. I have been the principal
`
`investigator (“PI”) or co-PI in several active research programs in these areas,
`
`including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors,
`
`the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated
`
`Sensors Laboratory Program, and the United States Air Force Electronics Parts
`
`Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty Award and the NSF’s
`
`Research Initiation Award. I have been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons
`
`Terman Medal by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions
`
`to Electrical Engineering, including authoring a widely-used textbook in the design
`
`of VLSI digital signal processors.
`
`7.
`
`I have developed and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in
`
`hardware and software design for signal processing and wireless communication
`
`circuits at Georgia Tech for the past twenty years. I graduated more than 20 Ph.D.
`
`students that now work as professors or in technical positions around the world.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an active consultant to industry and various research
`
`laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) Lincoln
`
`Labs and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). I have founded
`
`three companies in the areas of embedded software, military chipsets involving
`
`imaging technology, and wireless communications. I have supervised the Ph.D.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 04
`
`
`
`
`
`dissertations of over twenty engineers in the areas of computer engineering, sensors,
`
`
`
`signal processing, communications, rapid prototyping, and system-level design
`
`methodology, five of which have resulted in thesis prizes or paper awards.
`
`9. My consulting work for MIT Lincoln Labs involved high resolution
`
`imaging for defense applications, where I worked in the area of prototyping complex
`
`and specialized computing systems. My consulting work for Johns Hopkins Applied
`
`Physics Lab (“APL”) mainly involved localization of objects in image fields, where
`
`I worked on identifying targets in video and other sensor fields and identifying
`
`computer architectures and circuits for power and space-efficient designs.
`
`10.
`
`I have developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software and
`
`assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo-cancellation.
`
`11. The first of the companies I founded, VP Technologies, offers products
`
`in the area of semiconductor integrated circuits, including building computing
`
`systems for helicopter imaging systems for the United States Air Force. I remain a
`
`director of VP Technologies. The second of these companies, Soft Networks, LLC,
`
`offers software for multimedia and wireless computing platforms, including the
`
`development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-2 video streams and
`
`imaging codes for multimedia phones. The technology involved with the design,
`
`development, and implementation of the Intel set-top box included parsing the bit
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 05
`
`
`
`
`
`streams, decoding communications protocols, extracting image and video data, and
`
`
`
`then processing for subsequent display or storage. The third of these companies,
`
`Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding or decoding for
`
`capturing high quality video at very low bit rates, with primary application for
`
`wireless video systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have been active in the area of 4G-related communications in several
`
`areas of technologies, including orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM)-multiple input multiple output (MIMO) communications systems for
`
`several years, and some of my publications in this area include “Frequency
`
`Dependent Space-Interleaving of MIMO OFDM Systems,” Proc. IEEE Radio and
`
`Wireless Conference (RAWCON ’03), 2003; “Embedded Alamouti Space Time
`
`Codes for High Rate and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. Of IEEE Asilomar
`
`Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes
`
`for Fast Decoding in Time Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications
`
`(2011).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored several books, including VLSI Digital
`
`Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital Signal Processing Handbook
`
`(CRC Press, 1998). I am Editor of the three-volume DSP Handbook set (Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals; Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards; and Volume 3: Wireless, Networking,
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 06
`
`
`
`
`
`Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing), which was
`
`
`
`published in 2010 by CRC Press in Boca Raton, Florida.
`
`14. Additional representative peer-reviewed publications in the area of
`
`wireless communications are the following: (i) Turkboylari, M. and Madisetti, V.K.,
`
`“Effect of Handoff Delay on System Performance of TDMA Cellular Systems,” 4th
`
`International Workshop, Mobile & Wireless Communication Network, pp. 411-415,
`
`2002; (ii) Jatunov, L. and Madisetti, V.K., “Computationally-Efficient SNR
`
`Estimation for Bandlimited Wideband CDMA Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
`
`Wireless Communications, Issue 12, pp. 3480-3491, December 2006, and (iii) N.
`
`Radia, Y. Zhang, M. Tatipamula, V. Madisetti, “Next Generation Applications on
`
`Cellular Networks: Trends, Challenges, and Solutions,” Proceedings on IEEE, vol.
`
`100, Issue 4, pp. 841-854, April 2012.
`
`15.
`
`I am knowledgeable and familiar with standards related to the wireless
`
`and telecommunications systems industry, and as shown in my CV, some of my
`
`papers describe the application of these standards in optimizing design and testing
`
`of these systems. I am also knowledgeable and familiar with microprocessor
`
`architecture and associated software and firmware design for wireless and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations. In addition, since 2017, I have been
`
`Georgia Tech’s official representative to the Third Generation Partnership Project
`
`(3GPP), a standards body responsible for the development of wireless standards. In
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 07
`
`
`
`
`
`this role, I represent European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
`
`
`
`member Georgia Tech in several task forces for the development of 5G technology
`
`(including sensors) and will attend in-person meetings regarding the same.
`
`16.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks including wireless audio
`
`and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, like cell phones
`
`and Person Digital Assistants. I have worked on designing systems that are efficient
`
`from a performance, size, weight, area, and thermal point of view. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship of the United
`
`States Department of Defense in the late 1990’s, are available for educational use at
`
`http://www.eda.org/rassp. These lectures have been used by several U.S. and
`
`international universities as part of their course work. Some of my recent
`
`publications in the area of design of wireless communications systems and
`
`associated protocols are listed in my CV.
`
`17.
`
`In conjunction with a leading telecom vendor in Asia, through a joint
`
`venture called Soft Networks (“SN”), LLC in Atlanta in the late 1990’s and early
`
`2000’s, I collaborated with a team of engineers to support mobile and wireless
`
`services offerings in India. These involved the design and development of
`
`micropayment services for mobile phones, design of smartphones, soft switches, and
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 08
`
`
`
`
`
`telecom customer billing and fraud detection algorithms that included establishment
`
`
`
`of secure sessions and privileged access to customer account and billing data.
`
`18.
`
`I have proposed several draft proposals for standards to the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) in the area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming
`
`over the internet, including, “A Transport Layer Technology for Improving QoS of
`
`Networked Multimedia Applications,”
`
`IETF Draft,
`
`July
`
`25,
`
`2002
`
`(http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-madisettiargyriou-qos-sctp-00.pdf); “Voice & Video
`
`Over Mobile IP Networks,” IETF Draft, May 2002, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
`
`madisetti-argyriou-voice-video-mip-00); and “Enhancements to ECRTP with
`
`Applications to Robust Header Compression for Wireless,” January 2003, IETF
`
`Draft, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-madisetti-rao-suresh-rohc-00).
`
`19.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest
`
`grade of membership of the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over
`
`300,000 electrical and electronics engineers, with only one-tenth of one percent
`
`(0.1%) of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each
`
`year. Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 09
`
`
`
`
`
`Dissertation Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF Research Initiation Award in
`
`
`
`1990. I was Technical Program Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and
`
`the IEEE Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989 I was
`
`recognized with the Ira Kay IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper presented
`
`at the IEEE Annual Simulation Symposium.
`
`21.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $450/hour for each hour of
`
`services that I provide in connection with this case, including time I spend
`
`consulting, writing this report, giving deposition testimony and testifying. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the content of my testimony and is not
`
`affected by the outcome of the case. If called to testify as to the contents of this
`
`report, I can and would testify truthfully and competently.
`
`III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`22.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that the ‘576 patent has expired and that, in such a case,
`
`the claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in question at the
`
`time of the invention as set forth by the Phillips standard. I have been informed
`
`that the Phillips standard dictates that claim construction begins with the claim
`
`language itself, further informed by the intrinsic evidence of the specification and
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. 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
`
`nonobviousness. 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 of the invention.
`
`24.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that this Board and U.S. 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.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the United States Supreme Court’s most recent
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`I 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
`
`invention. I understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I understand 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.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that in order to rely on a prior art reference
`
`in an obviousness analysis, the prior art reference must be analogous to the claimed
`
`invention. I also understand that a prior art reference is shown to be analogous to the
`
`claimed invention if it is shown to be either (1) in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor
`
`(even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the field of endeavor is determined by looking at the
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 14
`
`
`
`claims and specification of the challenged patent.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for a prior art reference to be “reasonably pertinent”
`
`to the problem, it must have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his or her problem. To do this, it is necessary to consider the problem
`
`faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the patent’s
`
`specification.
`
`33.
`
`I understand 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; and (h) teaching away from the invention
`
`in the prior art. I further understand 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.
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. OPINION
`
`
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`34. The ‘576 Patent is broadly directed to a portable, self-contained
`
`device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity. EX1001,
`
`2:6-9. The device includes a movement sensor for measuring data associated with
`
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of the
`
`movement. Id. at 4:37-48. The movement sensor is electronically connected to a
`
`microprocessor which receives the signals generated by the movement sensor for
`
`analysis and subsequent processing. Id. at 4:52-55. The microprocessor is
`
`connected to a real-time clock to provide date and time information to the
`
`microprocessor. Id. at 5:35-37. In the ‘576 patent, user-programmable
`
`configuration information can be entered by a user, and the user-programmed
`
`operation parameters are uploaded to the microprocessor for use by the
`
`microprocessor. Id. at 5:59-6:9, 7:6-11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Using the microprocessor, the ‘576 patent interprets the physical
`
`movement data measured by the sensor using the user-programmed operation
`
`parameters and the real-time clock. Id. at 5:40-47. The ‘576 patent stores the
`
`physical movement data in a memory. Id. at 5:57-59. The microprocessor detects
`
`a user-defined event using the physical movement data and the user-programmed
`
`operation parameters. Id. at 40-47. The microprocessor also stores first event
`
`information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time
`
`stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first
`
`user-defined event occurred. Id.
`
`36. Figure 4 of the ‘576 patent represents a high-level block diagram of
`
`components of device.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
` I have the reviewed the patent, its file history, the institution
`
`decision, and all its claims, the alleged prior art references, and provide here the
`
`representative Claim 20 (with annotation) to provide some technical bases for my
`
`opinions in this declaration.
`
`Claim 20: A method to monitor physical movement of a body part
`comprising the steps of:
`(20a): attaching a portable, self-contained movement measuring
`device to said body part for measuring unrestrained movement in any
`direction;
`
`(20b): measuring data associated with said physical movement;
`
`(20c): 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;
`
`(20d): storing said data in memory;
`
`(20e): detecting, using the microprocessor, a first user-defined event
`based on the movement data and at least one of the user- defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data; and
`
`(20f): storing, in said memory, first event information related to the
`detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the
`first user-defined event occurred.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`I have created a version of Figure 4 in a manner that is useful in
`
`interpreting the claims and the prior art of record by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”). This figure is shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure A1
`
`39.
`
` The claimed steps 20a and 20b require that the sensor 30
`
`measure data associated with unrestrained movement of the body part. This data is
`
`represented by A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure A1.
`
`40.
`
` The claimed step 20c requires that a microprocessor 32
`
`interpret this measured data. This interpretation is performed by the
`
`microprocessor 32 based on user 34 defined operational parameters and the real-
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`time clock (RTC) 46. The RTC provides the time stamps as shown in the diagram
`
`
`
`A1, corresponding to the data A, B, C and D, respectively. The time stamp TS_A
`
`corresponds to data A, for example.
`
`41.
`
` The claimed step 20d requires that the data (that is measured in
`
`step 20b) is stored in memory 50.
`
`42.
`
` The claimed step 20e requires detecting an event by the
`
`microprocessor 32 (not by the sensor 30!) in the measured data from the
`
`interpretation step, the detection based on at least one of the user-defined
`
`operational parameters and the real-time clock. For the purposes of the example of
`
`Figure A1, I refer to this event as that corresponding to data A (interpreted as being
`
`associated with time stamp TS_A). The data values B, C, and D and their
`
`associated time stamps do not generate (at the microprocessor) a detected event, in
`
`this example. The event corresponding to A is denoted by a diamond shape in red
`
`along with its associated time stamp TS_A in memory 50.
`
`43. The claimed step 20f requires that this event and associated time
`
`stamp TS_A be also stored in memory 50, as shown in the example of Figure A1.
`
`44. In contrast, based on my review of the Stewart reference that is
`
`relied upon by the petitioner and its expert in this matter, the system of Stewart, at
`
`best, discloses an architecture that is represented by Figure A2, shown below.
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure A2
`
`45. As Figure A2 clearly shows, there is no disclosure of a
`
`microprocessor that performs the interpretation (based on user-defined operational
`
`parameters and real-time clock) and the detection of the event (based on user-
`
`defined operational parameters and the real-time clock). As per the evidence on
`
`the record cited by petitioner, the user directly operates on the sensor, and the real-
`
`time clock is directly coupled to the sensor. When viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to the petitioner, Stewart, at best, discloses that a sensor is manipulated
`
`by the user to only measure data corresponding to certain parameters set by the
`
`user. Based on my review of the petition and the declaration by Dr. Singer, there is
`
`no evidence that they have cited (See Pet., Garmin cited EX1004, Abstract, Figs. 1,
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`2A, 2B and 5, 1:26-28, 4:28-31, 4:32-33, 4:45-46, 4:46-59, 4:60-63, 5:4-7, 5:7-11,
`
`
`
`5:12-17, 5:63-67, 6:1-7, 6:13-16, 6:21-57, 7:34-38, 7:65-8:6, 8:58-62, 8:64-9:3,
`
`10:34-42, 11:51-63, 12:35-37, 12:43-44 and 14:6-11) that the claimed step 20b is
`
`present, because the sensor does not measure unrestrained movement of the body
`
`part. There is also no evidence on the record that claimed step 20c is present since
`
`there is no microprocessor disclosed, nor is there any disclosure of a
`
`microprocessor receiving all measured data (or even the subset of measured data)
`
`and interpreting it based on user-defined operational parameters and the real-time
`
`clock. I understand that Dr. Singer did not understand what the claimed step 20c
`
`meant, which renders his opinions unreliable and unsupportable, in my opinion.
`
`See Transcript, pages 5-9. In my opinion, the claimed step 20c is not disclosed in
`
`Stewart under all possible interpretations as to whether the measurement and/or
`
`interpretation steps require the use of the user-defined operational parameters and
`
`the real-time clock.
`
`46.
`
` Further, Stewart, does not disclose the two storing steps 20d
`
`and 20f, and there is no disclosure in the evidence on record that Stewart satisfies
`
`Step 20e as claimed.
`
`47.
`
` Similarly, I have reviewed the additional alleged prior art
`
`reference, Rush, that the petitioner and its expert, have relied upon in combination
`
`with Stewart for Grounds 1-3. In my opinion, based on the evidence in the
`
`
`
`24
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`record, the disclosure of Rush, (even when viewed in the light most favorable to
`
`the petitioner!), at best is represented by Figure A3, shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure A3
`
`48.
`
` As depicted by Figure A3, Rush discloses essentially the same
`
`set of components and processing flow of Stewart, and thus cannot remedy its
`
`deficiencies in disclosing or teaching any of the ‘576 patent’s claim limitations
`
`through their combination. The evidence in the record (See Pet., Garmin cited
`
`EX1006, 3:13-18, 9:48-58, and 10:26-28) does not show that Rush discloses
`
`claimed steps 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e, and 20f for substantially the same reasons I
`
`describe above for Stewart.
`
`
`
`25
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`49.
`
`I have also reviewed the alleged prior art reference, Richardson,
`
`that the petitioner and its expert, have relied upon in combination with Stewart for
`
`Ground 4. In my opinion, based on the evidence in the record, the disclosure of
`
`Richardson, (even when viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner!), at
`
`best is represented by Figure A4, shown below.
`
`
`
`Figure A4
`
`
`
`50. As Figure A4 clearly shows, the microprocessor does not perform the
`
`interpretation (based on user-defined operational parameters and real-time clock)
`
`and the detection of the event (based on user-defined operational parameters and
`
`the real-time clock). As per the evidence on the record cited by petitioner, the user
`
`
`
`26
`
`IPR2018-00564
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 25
`
`
`
`
`
`merely enters personal information, and the real-time clock merely provides for a
`
`
`
`duration of activity. When viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner,
`
`Richardson, at best, discloses that a microprocessor computes statistical metrics
`
`using personal data such as age, height and weight. Based on my review of the
`
`petition and the declaration by Dr. Singer, there is no evidence that they have cited
`
`(See Pet., Garmin cited EX1009, Abstract, Figures 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13a and 14,
`
`Table 1, 1:27-31, 2:13-15, 2:19-21, 4:20-27, 6:21-35, 7:39-52, 13:11-36, 15:29-32,
`
`16:8-20, 16:42-46, 16:51-54, 17:38-43, 18:26-29, 19:23-28, 28:28-32, 28:36-39,
`
`28:42-44, 28:44-45, 28:63-64, 28:10-11, 29:48
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
