`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and GARMIN USA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`Case IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 4, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQUIRE
`HUNTER HORTON, ESQUIRE
`Erise IP
`7015 College Boulevard
`Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER M. BARKLEY, ESQUIRE
`McCathern Law
`523 West Sixth Street
`Suite 830
`Los Angeles, California 90014
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 4,
`
`2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SCANLON: Good morning, everyone and welcome to the
`Board. This is a hearing for IPR2018-00564 and 565 which involves patent
`number 6,059,576. I'm Judge Scanlon in our Detroit office. With me today
`on the panel are Judge Worth and Judge Weatherly. Let's start with
`appearances. Who is here for petitioner, please.
`MR. SEITZ: Good morning, Your Honors. Adam Seitz on behalf
`of petitioner, Garmin. With me today is an associate from my firm, Hunter
`Horton. And then seated behind me, Your Honors, is David Ayres with
`Garmin International.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you. And for patent owner.
`MR. BARKLEY: Good morning, Your Honors. Christopher
`Barkley, counsel for LoganTree, patent owner.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you. So as set forth in the hearing
`order, each party will have 45 minutes to present arguments. Petitioner will
`present its case first and may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent owner will
`then present its case, after which petitioner may use any reserved time for
`rebuttal. And finally, patent owner may request an opportunity to present a
`brief surreply to petitioner's rebuttal.
`With that, I'll let petitioner take the podium. And please let me
`know how much time, if any, you would like to reserve.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Ten minutes, please. And
`as a matter of minor housekeeping, not knowing preferences, I have paper
`copies of our demonstratives, if Your Honors would prefer them. I'm
`perfectly fine with electronics as well.
`
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think I'm fine with the electronic
`version. Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: May it please the Court, we are here today, as
`discussed, to talk about the 564 and 565 petitions. Both relate to the '576
`patent, and both petitions rely on the same grounds of obviousness. Ground
`1 in the 564 petition is Stewart and Rush and ground 4 is Richardson and
`Stewart. For the 565, those are grounds 1 and then ground 3. The 564
`petition relates to claim 20. The 565 relates to claim 1. There is significant
`overlap between these two patents. The parties have briefed and argued
`nearly identical issues. So for purposes of today, I'm going to be talking
`mainly about claim 20, but the arguments apply equally to both petitions.
`And before we get into the art and the combinations itself, I think it
`would be useful to start with a description of the '576 patent. On the screen
`in front of you is demonstrative slide 4, which is a representation of claim 4
`with the various limitations that have been disputed by LoganTree
`highlighted in different colors. The '576 patent is focused fundamentally on
`an electronic device that attaches to your body that's used to measure some
`type of movement and track your individual motion. It then also is meant to
`account for a situation where you would have some, what they call, a
`user-defined operational parameter. What I'll refer to today is either a
`user-defined operational parameter or a threshold for shorthand. But there's
`some threshold that's set and the device, the '576 patent will monitor your
`activity and your movements to see when you have exceeded or met that
`threshold, that operational parameter, and if and when you do, will record
`this information to storage.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`In practice, the example given of the '576 patent is one of lifting a
`box. We've all heard that you lift with your knees and not with your back.
`That's a perfect example of the '576 patent. If we walk through the claim
`with that example in mind, what we see is that it's a portable self-contained
`device that attaches to the body that does not restrain your movement in any
`manner. So it's attached in this example to the waist or to the torso of the
`individual. And it's going to measure data associated with your movements
`using a clock and a processor. It's then going to store that data on your
`movements into memory.
`At the same time it's going to detect if you have exceeded this user
`set, this user-defined operational parameter. In the example that I have
`given, that user-defined operational parameter for someone that's lifting a
`box may be the angle at which your back is positioned. And so it is going to
`monitor and then detect if you have exceeded or met this user-defined
`operational parameter, for example, if you bend over too far in the example
`that we have been talking about. If so, then we see that it's going to store in
`memory that first user-defined event, the bending over and exceeding that
`angle, along with first timestamp information recording the time at which
`the movement data of the first user-defined event occurred.
`So if I bend over at 3:01 p.m. to pick up a box and exceed that
`user-defined operational parameter, the threshold, it's going to record a
`timestamp with that data that says you exceeded this user-defined
`operational threshold, this parameter at 3:01 p.m.
`JUDGE WORTH: Is there a difference between interpreting and
`detecting?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`MR. SEITZ: For, Your Honor, talking about specifically claim
`
`20?
`
`JUDGE WORTH: Claim 20, which you have on the board.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes. I'm sorry, interpreting using a microprocessor
`and the detecting using a microprocessor. So there must be some sort of
`difference here. And the interpreting in that first limitation, interpreting
`using a microprocessor is really just associated with collecting data as far as
`your normal movement goes and then looking for movements that might
`meet that user-defined operational parameter as well. So you are
`interpreting. That would be the comparison aspects of looking at it. And the
`detecting is then going to detect when you have met it and begin the storing
`step.
`
`JUDGE SCANLON: Excuse me. Do you look at interpreting --
`it's not simply -- if I understand your position, it's not simply data collection.
`I think you look at interpreting as you just said, comparing, but there's also
`some disclosure when we get to Stewart. I think some of the arguments
`were that the comparing to a threshold and also the integrating disclosure in
`Stewart. Can you speak to how the interpreting step would be met by
`integrating in Stewart.
`MR. SEITZ: So the interpreting in the integrating in Stewart,
`Stewart describes, if I skip forward, Your Honor, Stewart describes this
`portable system that is described as a helmet, some sort of helmet system
`that uses accelerometers. And there's two different methods of operation
`that Stewart describes. One is an always on method of operation where it's
`recording all of the inputs from the accelerometers in the helmets for a boxer
`or for a football player.
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`Another instance in which this is described in Stewart is where it
`detects -- it's modified to record in realtime detailed data only when the
`accelerations exceed a defined threshold. Your Honor, that's the instance
`where we are going to be interpreting data. And when there is an exceeding,
`then the interpreting is going to move to the detecting step where that has
`been detected and it's going to cause a storing of the timestamp information.
`Did that answer your question? Or perhaps I misunderstood.
`JUDGE SCANLON: No, I think that's -- it sounds like you are
`saying it's more the comparison that meets the interpreting step and less all
`the integrating or the processing that was described in Stewart. I took the
`petition as taking an either/or type approach, either of those actions in
`Stewart could be construed to be interpreting. Sounds like you are saying
`it's really more the comparison to the threshold.
`MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, we did say both in the petition. I think
`as things have gone along, it's much simpler to look at that threshold, which
`is just the simple comparison based on the arguments as they have
`progressed.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: So if we continue on with Stewart, and just to close
`the loop on this discussion, the way in which Stewart operates is these
`accelerometers. There can be 3 to 9 that are located in the helmet. It uses a
`processor that then is going to control the entire, what they call, the HAT
`system, the head acceleration monitoring technology system. So this
`processor can, like we said, operate where it's constantly reading or it can
`operate in a scenario where it's just looking for the exceeding of a threshold.
`For instance, a hit to the head that raises to a certain force level, at which
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`point the processor will see that a threshold has been exceeded and then it
`will record that data to its memory. Stewart detects that event, again, by
`using its accelerometers.
`Now, we have combined Stewart with Rush. Stewart discloses the
`helmet system which says it can be used in multiple different sports. It lists
`boxing and football as two of its primary examples. Rush is specifically
`focused on a football helmet. And it's a monitoring device in a football
`helmet that uses a sensor, accelerometers again, to detect impacts. The main
`focus of Rush is on an air bag system for a football, very similar to an air
`bag system in your car, that is designed to go off when it detects that an
`injury may occur. It uses this accelerometer on the crown of the helmet up
`at the top of the head to determine when a potential injury can occur based
`on the amount of force that it receives. And when that happens, not only
`will the air bag inflate, but the system of Rush is going to record the exact
`time and date of when that potential injury occurred.
`So Rush has a memory and a processor that's associated with it,
`has an accelerometer. Rush discloses that its accelerometer is adjustable.
`Rush is very specific that it wants to make sure that its system can be used
`for a wide variety of different people. Children, obviously, will take a far
`different impact level to activate than someone who plays professional
`sports, for example. So Rush notes that its sensor is adjustable by a user to
`accommodate those different levels or different thresholds.
`And we've used Rush in two specific instances for our
`combination. We've used it for limitation 20E, which is the detecting
`limitation, specifically for the user-defined operational parameters. Stewart
`has a predetermined threshold for when it will activate the sensor to begin
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`recording, but it's unclear from Stewart whether that's a user-defined
`predetermined threshold. Rush allows the adjustability. So we have
`combined Rush with Stewart for that user-defined operational parameter.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Who is the user?
`MR. SEITZ: Who is the user in that instance?
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: In the claimed device.
`MR. SEITZ: It doesn't say. It's a method to monitor physical
`movement of a body part, and the claim is not specific on who that user is.
`In the examples in the specification, it could be as broad as an individual
`person being the user. The specification also --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Individual person, you mean the wearer?
`MR. SEITZ: The wearer of the device. Thank you for the
`clarification. Could be the wearer of the device, but it also lists other
`situations where it could be a supervisor, for example, who wants to monitor
`their employees and make sure they are not undertaking injurious activities.
`So in either of those situations, you could have that user, whether it's the
`employer or a different person that's deploying the device or the wearer of
`the device.
`We've also used Rush on limitation 20F, which is the second
`storing limitation relating to the storing of the timestamp for when the event
`occurred. We know that there is storing that occurs in Stewart, but it does
`not explicitly disclose in Stewart that the storage would include a timestamp,
`the date and time when the actual user operational threshold has been
`exceeded. Rush does. It includes a disclosure that you would record the
`date and time when that, what they describe as spearing, hitting the head,
`that potentially injurious activity, would occur.
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`Slide 8, I'm going to begin walking through some of the arguments
`that LoganTree has made here. One of the first arguments that has been
`made relates to the very first limitation, 20A, and specifically to the
`measuring unrestrained movement. Now, LoganTree argues that Stewart is
`in some way restrained. Now, first, there's no proposed claim construction
`that LoganTree has offered for what restrained or unrestrained would mean
`here, what specifically would or would not meet that. LoganTree just argues
`that Stewart is restrained.
`They do so in a number of different ways. They first argue that the
`claims do not require the sports activity should be unhindered. The claim
`recites that the measurement should not be hindered. That's from the
`surreply at 6. The claim tells us, as we can see from the green on slide 8 at
`the top, that you are measuring unrestrained movement. So all the claim
`requires is measuring unrestrained movement. The claim does not require
`that the measurements should be hindered or unhindered.
`And as for unrestrained movement, we know that Stewart allows
`for the user to continue their activity, sports activity in whatever manner
`they choose. Stewart --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: That sounds to me like what you are
`arguing is that movement in any direction is unrestrained.
`MR. SEITZ: That is correct.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So then why does the claim say
`unrestrained movement in any direction? Is it just saying the same thing
`twice?
`
`MR. SEITZ: No, Your Honor, specifically if we look at the file
`history, and I've moved forward to slide 10 in the slide deck of 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
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`demonstratives, there was a rejection based on a reference stalled Stark.
`And Stark was an orthopedic restraining device that physically restrained a
`body part of an individual. We can see here that it says Stark's invention is
`an orthopedic restraining device used to immobilize and rehabilitate injured
`human limbs by providing controlled resistance to movement.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think you're not understanding my
`question, so let me take another shot at it. This phrase, "unrestrained
`movement in any direction" seems to be -- to me to be sort of inherently
`redundant. Movement in any direction is a way to define unrestrained
`movement, in other words.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: At least I think that's what you are
`arguing. So since we are supposed to attribute meaning to every word in a
`claim, what, if anything, are we supposed to attribute to unrestrained as
`distinct from in any direction?
`MR. SEITZ: Again, I think -- and thank you for the clarification.
`I don't believe those are redundant. Unrestrained movement in any
`direction, in light of what we know about Stark, which is going to limit the
`movement of a body part in a single direction, I think this claim is making
`clear that you are unrestrained in all directions.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think -- so unrestrained is a
`characteristic of the body part being unrestrained?
`MR. SEITZ: Its ability to move.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: It's not a characteristic of the movement
`
`per se?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`MR. SEITZ: Correct. Based on what it says about Stark where
`that orthopedic device would limit your movement or restrain your
`movement in a particular direction.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So I think what I'm hearing you say is
`that you are interpreting this claim to refer to a measuring -- attaching a
`measuring device to an unrestrained body part for measuring movement in
`any direction.
`MR. SEITZ: That is correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And the patent owner, if they quibble
`about that, I'm sure when your opposing counsel stands up he'll tell me if
`that's a problem.
`MR. SEITZ: I'm certain he will. As it relates to Stewart, Stewart
`says that without hindering, inhibiting or otherwise affecting the ability of
`the user to perform the sport. So I am reading that as meeting the
`unrestrained movement in any direction.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, the sensors can sense movement in
`any direction, but if the body part is restrained, then there won't be
`movement in some directions, right?
`MR. SEITZ: That's correct. So in Stewart you can have up to nine
`accelerometers to measure movement in absolutely any direction. But the
`important part here is that the system of Stewart itself, looking back to the
`file history, it's located in the helmet, and it doesn't have wires, that for
`example, would prevent you from bending your head forward. In Stewart it
`leaves the body part unhindered to move in any direction but also includes
`the nine accelerometers to measure.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`
`LoganTree has also argued, looking at slide 9, that the device in
`Stewart and in Rush is constrained to a particular sport and restrained to the
`specific sport situation. Stewart is clear that the invention is applicable for
`use with multiple parts of the body. Its use is not limited to just boxing or to
`football. It discusses other things such as pole vaulters, running, sprinting,
`swimming. So there's multiple different applications that Stewart can be
`used for.
`And I have discussed Stark here, Your Honor, so I'm going to
`move forward to slide 11. We get into the interpreting limitation, and here
`the focus between the parties has been on the role of the microprocessor.
`The interpreting limitation found in 20C is interpreting using a
`microprocessor, said physical movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters in a realtime clock. LoganTree has argued two
`separate things here. The first one comes from their expert, Dr. Madisetti.
`And I think this flaw finds itself in the interpreting and in the detecting
`limitations where they have made the argument that Stewart does not
`disclose a microprocessor. I have highlighted specifically on page 11
`Dr. Madisetti's statement from paragraphs 44 and 45 where he says there's
`also no evidence on the record that claim step 20C is present since there is
`no microprocessor disclosed. Instead what LoganTree has done is put all of
`the interpreting and ultimately the detecting, which we'll get into, on to the
`accelerometers themselves.
`There's two significant problems here. The first is that contrary to
`what Dr. Madisetti has said, there is a microprocessor that's disclosed in
`Stewart. When asked about that in his deposition, he did agree that there
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`was a microprocessor and said that his figure, which is repeated here on 11
`that he created for purposes of his expert report, was not complete.
`Second, LoganTree, in its patent owner response --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Where is that testimony?
`MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, I will look that up. I thought I had that
`written down, and I'm sorry, I don't.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I ask that because I don't see it cited in
`your demonstrative, and I'm trying to make the transcript more useful for us
`later.
`
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, Your Honor. Let me look that up at the break.
`I have it marked in my notes, and I'll look that up for you.
`Now, the second problem with LoganTree's processor argument is
`in its patent owner response, they have had their expert argue that there is no
`microprocessor. And at the same time they also acknowledge there is a
`processor, as noted on page 12 of the demonstratives. But they say the
`processor is merely controlling the storage of the measured data.
`So there is an inconsistency here. But if we accept their argument
`that Stewart does have a microprocessor, which we believe it does, it's
`expressly disclosed, they are saying that the sole role of the microprocessor
`in Stewart is just controlling the storage of the measured data. So this
`argument essentially suggests that the accelerometers disclosed in Stewart
`are going to act as microprocessors, but there's simply no support for that
`from their expert or anywhere else.
`They have read into Stewart that the accelerometers themselves
`would have memory and processing capability. Yet when you look at their
`expert declaration from Dr. Madisetti, there is no support that they would
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`operate in that manner, that they would have processors, that they would
`have memory.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: As far as I can tell, there's no attempt by
`either party to help the panel understand anything about the specific
`hardware that's recited both in Stewart and in the patent at issue. And the
`patent at issue and Stewart also recites some pretty specific hardware,
`specific processors, specific accelerometers. I wish that you had provided --
`your expert had provided some analysis of that hardware. That would have
`made it much easier for us to understand the similarities and differences
`between these two. Maybe your expert did that analysis and there were too
`many differences. I don't know. This is just sort of an aside, I guess, this
`comment, because the record is what it is at this point. But am I correct in
`my conclusion that we don't have anything of record other than the
`references to specific hardware?
`MR. SEITZ: As far as the specific hardware, the type of
`accelerometers and the type of the Motorola processor that's mentioned, that
`is correct. Neither expert provided, for example, spec sheets or data sheets
`on those.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I could find them on the internet, but it's
`been a long time since I had to understand those things in a meaningful
`context. It would have been helpful to have that from an expert.
`MR. SEITZ: Duly noted, Your Honor. What we do know from
`Stewart is the disclosure regarding the role of its processor, if not the details
`of this specific Motorola processor that is discussed. Stewart does discuss
`that the processor controls the storage of data. I'm referring specifically to
`demonstrative page 13, the very top citation which comes from column 8.
`
`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
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`And LoganTree is correct. The disclosure says the processor controls the
`storage of data from the A/D converter to the data storage. But the
`disclosure goes on to say that the processor comprises any conventional
`processor device, including a microcontroller or microprocessor, and
`controls the operation of the HAT system. The HAT system was the entire
`Stewart system. It describes the HAT system as its entire invention.
`So we know that the processor itself controls the entire operation
`of the system. We also know that the system can be modified to record in
`realtime detailed data only when the accelerations exceed a defined
`threshold. Again, the processor is controlling the system.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And that's just from the disclosure at the
`top of column 5 in Stewart?
`MR. SEITZ: That is correct.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Where else, if anywhere, does Stewart
`allude to that capability?
`MR. SEITZ: Stewart alludes to that in the abstract where the
`system is designed to measure and record in realtime data. And also refers
`to that same aspect in column 4 at about line 28, the head acceleration
`monitoring technology, HAT, is a portable system designed to measure and
`record acceleration data in realtime. So those two, Your Honor, with the
`discussion at the top of column 5 about how the processor controls the
`operation of the system, our expert has opined that that tells you the
`processor is going to perform this step of comparing.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: The top of column 4, that reference in
`column 4 that you just gave us, though, doesn't that actually support 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`patent owner's position that the processor is -- maybe it's capable of doing
`more than just directing traffic effectively?
`MR. SEITZ: I believe that's exactly what 5 tells us, what column 5
`
`tells us.
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I understand, but I asked for other places
`in Stewart that supported your position that a microprocessor does
`interpreting. And you pointed me at this part of column 4, and I don't see
`how that supports that proposition. And maybe I'm just not seeing it, which
`is why I'm asking you about it.
`MR. SEITZ: So when I look at the measuring aspect here in light
`of the disclosure of column 5, when I look at the design to measure and
`record acceleration data in realtime, in light of the disclosure in column 5,
`when you look at the measuring aspect that's going to involve looking at
`measuring, whether that has met a threshold, whether that has exceeded a
`threshold --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Aren't the accelerometers the things
`doing the measuring?
`MR. SEITZ: The accelerometers do the measuring, yes.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So measuring is different from
`comparing, right?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, that is true.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So I'm not seeing how measuring equates
`to interpreting.
`MR. SEITZ: The other disclosure that I have cited, Your Honor,
`on slide 13 comes from 5:7-11 where the data is recorded in realtime, may
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`be processed in realtime as well. And so I also view that, the processing of
`the data in realtime, as supporting the suggestion that the controller is --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Certainly moving the data from -- I
`mean, so the accelerometers generate an analog signal. There is an A/D
`converter that digitizes the signal. The digital versions of the measured
`signal are stored in memory. Stewart is very detailed in explaining how the
`processor serves as the traffic cop to move data into storage, right? It's not
`particularly detailed, though, about this concept that's shown at the top of
`column 5 where it's deciding what to store, storing only things that exceed a
`defined threshold, for example. That's the only place I see anything that
`looks like the microprocessor perhaps interpreting.
`MR. SEITZ: The column 5 that we have been discussing?
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Yes, the top of column 5.
`MR. SEITZ: I would agree that's the clearest disclosure for the
`processor.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, it's the only place I see Stewart
`doing that. I guess what I'm trying to get from you is where else, if
`anywhere, does Stewart clearly talk about the microprocessor doing some
`kind of interpreting, even if it's as simple as comparing the data to a
`threshold.
`MR. SEITZ: So I believe 5 is the clearest. Four, you and I have a
`disagreement on with regard to the measuring. So for purposes of this
`back-and-forth here, I would say it is limited to 5.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`JUDGE SCANLON: If I can follow-up on that, just for
`clarification on your slide 13, the first quote you have is from column 8. 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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`your position that because it describes the processor as controlling the
`operation of the HAT system, that implies or suggests that the processor
`controls the functions that are described in column 5?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Is that your position, is support for the
`functions of column 5 being performed by a processor?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. When it tells us in
`column 8 -- thank you for that clarification. Column 8 that the processor
`controls the operation of the HAT system, that tells us that the processor is
`controlling the threshold analysis, this realtime analysis of data that's taking
`place.
`
`JUDGE SCANLON: So I would say it's maybe not entirely clear,
`but you seem to be saying that that statement is indicating that the processor
`controls the entire operation of the system or we should take from that
`disclosure that it controls the entire system?
`MR. SEITZ: I believe that's exactly what that means when it says
`controls the operation of the HAT system. And the HAT system itself is
`described as the invention of Stewart.
`JUDGE WORTH: So you defined interpreting as comparing. Did
`any of these passages that we just looked at talk about comparing?
`MR. SEITZ: The passage in 4, the acceleration exceeds a defined
`threshold, is a comparison.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think that's at 5, right?
`MR. SEITZ: I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. In column 5, that's 5 to
`11, when it talks about exceeding a threshold, that is necessarily a
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00564 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`IPR2018-00565 (Patent 6,059,576C1)
`
`comparison. You are looking at a threshold and whether you are above or
`below that.
`JUDGE WORTH: And is it explicit or inherent that that
`comparison is done by the same unit as doing the controlling?
`MR. SEITZ: I believe that's explicit, that it's the processor that's
`controlling the system and that the processor would be the one that is going
`to be looking at whether you have acc
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
