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 No. IPR2018-00565
`Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`DECLARATIONOF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND GARMIN USA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00565
`Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`DECLARATIONOF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Andrew C.Singer, hereby declare the following:
`
`I,
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, have been retained by counselfor 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-14, 56-58, 140, 144, and 146. Myopinionsare limited to those
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcomeof 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:
`
`e 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 reexaminationfile 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 Churchet al. (“Church”);
`EX1009 — U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardsonet al. (“Richardson”);
`EX1011 — J.R.W. Morris, “Accelerometry — A Technique for
`the
`Measurement of Human Body Movements,” J. Biomechanics, Vol. 6,
`PergamonPress (1973, pp. 729-736) (“Morris”);
`e EX1012-—U.S. Patent No. 3,797,010 to Adler et al. (“Adler”);
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 2
`
`
`
`e EX1013—-U:S. Patent No. 5,803,740 to Gesink et al. (“Gesink”);
`e EX1014 — UK Patent Application No. GB 2,225,459A to Holder
`(“Holder”);
`e EX1015 — C. Verplaetse, “Inertial proprioceptive devices: Self-motion-
`sensing toys andtools,” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, Nos. 3&4 (1996,
`pp. 639-650) (“Verplaetse”);
`e EX1016 — Alan Freedman, The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, The
`Computer Language CompanyInc. (1996) (“Freedman”); and
`e EX1017 — Robert C Cantu, Headinjuries in sport, Br J Sports Med 30
`(289-296; 1996) (“Cantu”).
`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`JI 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 Technologyin 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.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 3
`
`
`
`A focus of many of these publications is on methods for improving efficiency,
`
`reducing powerandpreserving 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
`
`powerandpreservebattery life.
`
`8.
`
`Ihave 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.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`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 (“TEEE”)
`
`“for contributions to signal processing techniques for digital communication.” I
`
`wasalso selected as a Distinguished Lecturer of the Signal Processing Society.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`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.
`
`[have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix A, which includes a
`
`list of all publications I have authored within the last ten years.
`
`Il.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`15. Lama technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,I
`
`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.
`
`Ihave 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 knownthat
`
`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 ofpriorart.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 6
`
`
`
`17. Counsel has also informed methat 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 methat courts consider the following factors: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the priorart, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claimsat 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 donein 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 contentofthe 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 thatall of
`
`the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 7
`
`
`
`range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the
`
`type of problemsdescribed 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 knownto 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 bythe patent.
`
`20.
`
`Ihave also been informedthat in conducting an obviousness analysis, a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`IPR2018-00565
`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
`
`knownin the field of endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements ofthe 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 notall 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 beyondtheir
`
`primary purposes.
`
`21.
`
`Ihave been informed that the fact that a particular combination ofprior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obviousto try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and commonsense rather than innovation.
`
`I
`
`further understand that in manyfields 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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 9
`
`
`
`invention.
`
`J understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`morethan yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`22.
`
`Ihave 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 technologyin the field.
`
`23.
`
`Ihave been informedthat at least the following rationales may support
`
`a finding of obviousness:
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`e
`
`®
`
`®
`
`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 knowntechnique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvementto 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 bythe patent’s
`claim;
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 10
`
`
`
`e
`
`°
`
`Known workin one field of endeavor may promptvariationsofit 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.
`
`Ihave been informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousnessis
`
`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 priorart.
`
`25.
`
`Ihave further been informed that secondary considerations evidenceis
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 11
`
`
`
`that Patent Ownerhas not offered any secondary considerationsat this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event
`
`that Patent Owner
`
`raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course ofthis proceeding.
`
`Il. OPINION
`
`A.
`
`Backgroundof 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
`
`(Saunderset 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. Jd. 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 .
`
`accelerometers are mounted on the perspex platform shown in Fig. 3.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Five
`
`. The
`
`platform is mounted over the flat, antero-medial surface ofthe tibia.”). As shown
`
`in the following figure, the sensor platform was small enough so as to not impede
`
`the subject’s movements:
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 3. The accelerometer mounting platform, showing five accelerometers and other as-
`sociated electrical components.
`
`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. Jd. 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 inputfacilities and a visual display.”).
`
`29. By the 1970s, “jogging computers,” such as that described by US.
`
`Patent No. 3,797,010 to Adleret al., were also being developed “for measuring and
`
`indicating physical exercise achievement attained through exercises, for example,
`
`IPR2018-00565
`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 predeterminedrate.” Jd. at Abstract.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 14
`
`
`
`) AUDIO OSCILLATOR
`
`LOW FREQUENCY
`| AUDIO OSCILLATOR
`
`HIGH FREQUENCY
`
`S$02GS
`
`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.” Jd. 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.” Jd. 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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 15
`
`
`
`at which that allowed level was exceeded.
`
`Jd. 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 whenapreset 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. Jd.
`
`at pl.
`
`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.
`
`/d. 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.” Jd. at 643.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 16
`
`
`
`Figure 2 Schematic of general proprioceptive system
`
`X-ACCELEROMETER
`
`¥-ACCELEROMETER
`
`OTHER SENSORS AUE
`
`X-+GYROSCOPE|ee2__4__¥vy|
`
`TEMPERATURE SENSOR
`
`Id. at 644,
`
`35. Whenincorporated 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.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`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 workedatthat 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 embeddedsignal
`
`processing systemsora 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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 18
`
`
`
`active in the industry, I have developed and performed research related to many
`
`embeddedsignal 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 connectedto 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. Stewart Inherently Discloses a Real-Time Clock
`
`40.
`
`It is my understanding that certain claims of the ’576 patent, including
`
`claims | and 13, 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 includesreal-time clock.
`
`41.
`
`Stewart describes “[a] system designed to measure and record in real
`
`time data relating to translational and angular acceleration of an individual’s head
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 19
`
`
`
`during normalsporting activity.” EX1004, Stewart at Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`Stewart’s system includes a monitoring device incorporated into conventional
`
`sporting gear, such as a helmet.
`
`Jd. 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.
`
`Jd. 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,
`
`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.
`
`42. A “processor 52 controls the storage of the data from the A/D
`
`converter 46 to the data storage 51.” Jd. at 8:58-59.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`43.
`
`“The processor 52 comprises any conventional processor device,
`
`including a microcontroller or a microprocessor, and controls the operation of the
`
`HAT system.” Jd. at 8:59-62.
`
`44.
`
`Stewart also discloses that the processor executes time-based, user-
`
`defined commandsthat “‘set the general parameters of the data storage operation of
`
`the HAT.” Jd. 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
`
`commandstransmitted 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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 21
`
`
`
`necessarily requiring the processor to access a real-time clock to determine when
`
`to start and stop recording data.
`
`45.
`
`Stewart discloses the following exemplary time-based commands that
`
`cause the processor to perform time-based functions:
`
`e “| SETMS’ : sets the sample time to 1 ms. (Note that other sampling rates
`
`greater or less than 1 ms sampling can be implemented.)” Jd. at 12:20-22
`
`e
`
`“‘n R_INTERVALC!’ : sets the number of minutes n between each round
`
`of data being collected.” Jd. at 12:31-32.
`
`e
`
`“‘GO’: prompts the user for the present
`
`time and start
`
`time for data
`
`collection.” /d. at 12:43-44.
`
`46. 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 providedby 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
`
`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.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 22
`
`
`
`47. Regarding the “1 SETMS” 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
`
`becomea real-time clock.
`
`48. 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 becomea real-time clock.
`
`49. 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.
`
`50. 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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 23
`
`
`
`enabling the processor determine the current time thereby allowing it to compare
`
`the current timeto thestart/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.
`
`D. Obvious to Combine Stewart and Rush
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`interpreting, storing and responding to said
`receiving,
`movement data based _on_user-defined operational
`arameters
`
`51. Claim 1
`
`recites the limitation, “receiving,
`
`interpreting, storing and
`
`responding to said movement data based on user-defined operational parameters.”
`
`As
`
`I discussed above, Stewart’s user-defined commands “set
`
`the general
`
`parameters of the data storage operation of the HAT.” EX1004, Stewart at 11:53-
`
`54. Stewart also describes an embodiment where the processor “record[s] in real-
`
`time detailed data only whenthe accelerations exceed a defined threshold.” Jd. at
`
`5:4-7; see also,
`
`id. at 14:6-11 (“[I]n boxing,
`
`it is possible to correlate certain
`
`responses of the accelerometers 10-12 with desirable punches exceeding a
`
`predetermined threshold.
`
`.
`
`. It might also be possible to determine if a football
`
`player is improperly using his helmet(e.g., illegal spearing).”).
`
`52. The processor receives accelerometer data from the A/D converter 46
`
`and then interprets the acceleration data to determine if the accelerations exceed
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 24
`
`
`
`predetermined threshold.
`
`Jd. at 8:64-67, 5:4-7, 14:6-11.
`
`If the accelerations do
`
`exceed the thresholds, then the processor stores the associated “real-time detailed
`
`data.” Jd. at 5:4-7.
`
`53. While Stewart discloses that the acceleration thresholds are “defined”
`
`and “predetermined,” Stewart does not disclose who defines/predetermines the
`
`thresholds. Rush also describes a monitoring device incorporated into a football
`
`helmet that uses a sensor for detecting “an axial load caused, for example, by a
`
`spearing movement of the wearer.” EX1006, Rush at 9:40-54. The threshold
`
`value for detecting a spearing movement is “preferably adjustable so that the
`
`magnitude of the axial impact experienced may be varied to accommodate players
`
`of different ages and sizes and to minimize the accidental actuation of the signal.”
`
`Id. at 9:54-58: see also, id. at 3:13-18 (“In another embodiment,it is a still further
`
`object of this invention to provide a helmet with a signal device to sound an
`
`audible alarm signal or to display a visual indication when the helmet wearer
`
`experiences an axial compressive force above a selected force level such as occurs
`
`when the wearer engagesin head spearing.”).
`
`54. Based on the teachings of Rush,
`
`it would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to enable the user to define Stewart’s
`
`acceleration thresholds. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable
`
`Stewart’s thresholds to be adjusted in order to accommodate different players as
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Garmin EX1010 Page 25
`
`
`
`taught by Rush. This modification would have predictably resulted in Stewart’s
`
`processor receiving, interpreting, and storing the acceleration data based on user-
`
`defined acceleration thresholds.
`
`55.
`
`Stewart already discloses that the data collection operations performed
`
`by the processor 52 are based on user-defined commands. EX1004, Stewart at
`
`11:30-33 (“Storage of data from the outputs of the accelerometers 10-12 is started
`
`and stopped by the processor 52 via comman
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
