`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: August 30, 2018
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`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 IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On February 21, 2018, Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA,
`Inc. (“Garmin” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 C1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`’576 patent”). LoganTree LP (“LoganTree” or “Patent Owner”) did not file
`a Preliminary Response.
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any
`response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set
`forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is
`unpatentable, and we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
`14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner states that it has filed another petition for inter partes
`review of the ’576 patent, in IPR2018-00564. Pet. 75. Petitioner states that
`two other inter partes review proceedings with respect to the ’576 patent
`terminated after the filing of a petition but before any decision on institution,
`i.e., IPR2017-00256, -258. Pet. 75–76.
`The parties state that the ’576 patent is the subject of a patent
`infringement litigation, LoganTree LP v. Garmin International, Inc., Case
`No. 6:17-cv-01217 (D. Kansas), and that another proceeding with the same
`parties in a different jurisdiction has been dismissed without prejudice to
`refiling in another district, LoganTree LP v. Garmin International, Inc., Case
`No. 5-17-cv-00098 (TXWD). Pet. 75; Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`B. The ’576 Patent (Ex. 1001)1
`The ’576 patent is titled “Training and Safety Device, System and
`Method to Aid in Proper Movement During Physical Activity” and relates to
`“the field of electronic training and safety devices used to monitor human
`physical activity.” Ex. 1001, [54], 1:6–7. More specifically, the ’576 patent
`discloses a method that detects, measures, records, and/or analyzes the time,
`date, and other data associated with movement of the device and produces
`meaningful feedback regarding the measured movement. See id. at 1:8–11.
`The ’576 patent discloses that certain prior art devices recorded the
`number of times that a predetermined angle was exceeded but were not
`convenient to operate and served to report rather than analyze the
`information. See id. at 1:45–54. The ’576 patent discloses that it is also
`important to measure the angular velocity to monitor and analyze improper
`movement. Id. at 1:55–67.
`The ’576 patent discloses an electronic device which tracks and
`monitors an individual’s motion through the use of a movement sensor
`capable of measuring data associated with the wearer’s movement. Id.
`at 2:10–13. The device of the ’576 patent also employs a user-
`programmable microprocessor which receives, interprets, stores and
`responds to the movement data based on customizable operation parameters,
`a clock connected to the microprocessor, memory for storing the movement
`and analysis data, a power source, a port for downloading the data from the
`
`
`1 An ex parte reexamination certificate issued on Mar. 17, 2015, with all
`claims either amended from their original form or newly added during
`reexamination. Ex. 1001, [45] C1, cols. 1–12 C1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`device to other computation or storage devices contained within the system,
`and various input and output components. Id. at 2:13–21.
`Figure 4 of the ’576 patent is a block diagram of the movement
`measuring device (id. at 3:11–12):
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a block diagram of the components of the device.
`The downloadable, self-contained device can be worn at various
`positions along the torso or appendages being monitored depending on the
`specific physical task being performed. Id. at 2:21–24. The device also
`monitors the speed of the movements made while the device is being worn.
`Id. at 2:24–25. When a pre-programmed recordable event is recognized, the
`device records the time and date of the occurrence while providing feedback
`to the wearer via visual, audible and/or tactile warnings. Id. at 2:25–29.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`Periodically, data from the device may be downloaded into an associated
`computer program which analyzes the data. Id. at 2:29–31. The program
`can then format various reports to aid in recognizing and correcting trends in
`incorrect physical movement. Id. at 2:31–33.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims that are challenged in this
`proceeding. Claim 1, as amended in the reexamination proceeding, is
`illustrative and reads as follows:
`for monitoring
`1.
`A portable, self-contained device
`movement of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated
`with unrestrained movement in any direction and generating
`signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and
`to said power source, said microprocessor capable of receiving,
`interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data based
`on user-defined operational parameters, detecting 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 storing 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:
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor
`for controlling the operation of said device;
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for
`signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and
`velocity of said movement.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:25–50 C1.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`US 5,474,083, iss. Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1008, “Church”);
`US 5,546,609, iss. Aug. 20, 1996 (Ex. 1006, “Rush”);
`US 5,976,083, iss. Nov. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1009, “Richardson”);
`US 5,978,972, iss. Nov. 9, 1999 (Ex. 1004, “Stewart”).2
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146
`of the ’576 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`References
`
`Stewart and Rush
`
`Stewart, Rush, and Church
`
`Richardson and Stewart
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12
`
`11
`1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56–
`58, 140, 144, 146
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`Petitioner asserts that the ʼ576 patent expired on Nov. 21, 2017.
`Pet. 9. The ’576 patent was filed on Nov. 21, 1997, and issued on May 9,
`2000. Ex. 1001, [22], [45]. The issued patent bears a notice stating “This
`patent issued on a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR
`
`
`2 In the alternative, Petitioner relies for Stewart on the filing date of its
`provisional application, U.S. Provisional Application 60/020271, filed June
`14, 1996 (Ex. 1005, hereinafter, “the Stewart provisional application.”). We
`do not reach the issue of the effective filing date of Stewart at this time. For
`purposes of this Decision, we analyze the asserted grounds based on Stewart
`with respect to the Stewart reference as issued, i.e., Exhibit 1004.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`1.53(d), and is subject to the twenty year patent term provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`154(a)(2).” Id. at [*]. For this Decision, therefore, we proceed on the basis
`that the patent has expired. For expired patents, we apply the claim
`construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Petitioner does not request construction of any terms. See Pet. 9. We
`determine that none of the terms in the challenged claims requires express
`construction for purposes of this Decision in order to resolve the issues
`presented by the Petition. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 over Stewart
`(Ex. 1004) and Rush (Ex. 1006)
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Stewart and Rush. Pet. 9–36.
`
`1. Overview of Stewart
`Stewart is titled “Helmet System Including at Least Three
`Accelerometers and Mass Memory and Method for Recording in Real-Time
`Orthogonal Acceleration Data of a Head” and relates to a helmet-based
`system which is typically worn while playing a sport such as boxing or
`football, and to the method of recording and storing data relating to
`translational and angular accelerations of the person’s head due to impact
`forces acting thereon. Ex. 1004, [54], 1:19–23.
`Stewart describes drawbacks in conventional prior art devices.
`According to Stewart, conventional devices did not measure and record
`translational and angular forces to a living human head over a period of time
`of exposure, particularly where the exposure was of a low level below that
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`which would normally cause concern for injury. Id. at 4:3–7. Further,
`conventional devices which measured acceleration in a single direction, or
`from a single event, or only above a predetermined threshold, or in a way
`which did not permit use during performance of the actual sport did not
`provide the dynamics necessary to correlate exposure to forces to the injury
`caused by that exposure over a period of time. Id. at 4:13–19.
`Stewart discloses “Head Acceleration-monitoring Technology” or
`“HAT,” which is a portable system designed to measure and record
`acceleration data in real time in both translational and angular directions of
`an individual’s head during normal activity. Id. at 4:28–31. Stewart
`discloses that the device may be used to monitor other body parts, or the
`body in general. Id. at 4:31–33.
`The HAT is designed as a standard component of otherwise
`conventional sporting gear, in particular the helmet. It includes at least three
`orthogonally-placed accelerometers and means to record the output
`therefrom in real time. Id. at 4:45–47. The data from the accelerometers are
`recorded in real time during performance of the sport. Id. at 4:60–61. The
`data is either recorded on a memory card or other mass memory means
`installed in the helmet, or is transmitted to a nearby receiver for storage on a
`computer’s hard drive or other conventional mass storage device. Id. at
`4:61–65.
`Figure 2B of Stewart is a top view of an embodiment using three
`orthogonal accelerometers and a memory card installed inside a boxing
`helmet (id. at 5:30–35):
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2B of Stewart is a top view of a boxing helmet.
`
`Items 10, 11, and 12 are three orthogonal accelerometers that provide
`aggregated data relating to three translational directions and two angular
`accelerations but not sufficient information to separate translational and
`rotational components uniquely. Id. at 6:45–47. In one embodiment
`accelerometers 10, 12 are mounted at right angles on a printed circuit board
`(PCB), together with a processor, an A/D converter, a Program RAM/ROM
`component, a PCMCIA interface, and a serial control interface. Id. at 7:12–
`16.
`
`2. Overview of Rush
`Rush is titled “Helmet” and relates “to a helmet which will prevent
`damaging axial compressive forces, occasioned by impacts to the crown area
`of the head, i.e. the helmet, from being transmitted to the cervical spine of
`the wearer” and “to helmets which provide a signal or indication that the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`wearer has participated in activity which can be potentially dangerous to the
`wearer. Ex. 1006, [54], 1:11–15, 1:21–23. Rush discloses a protective
`helmet that in one embodiment is accompanied by a bag that inflates and
`deflates. Id. at 3:24–58. In one embodiment, a helmet transmits a signal to a
`remote observer to indicate that the wearer has engaged in potentially self-
`injurious activity. Id. at 3:21–24.
`
`3. Analysis
`In its Petition, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as to how the
`limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are disclosed in, or obvious
`over, the combination of Stewart and Rush. Pet. 9–36. Petitioner relies on
`the declaration of Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D. Ex. 1010. We address these
`contentions below. We emphasize that the following determinations
`regarding the sufficiency of the Petition are preliminary in nature at this
`stage of the proceeding.
`
`a. Claim 1
`i. “A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts
`during physical activity, said device comprising:”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses a portable device
`that is self-contained within a piece of conventional sporting gear, such as a
`helmet, that monitors the movement of the head or other body parts during
`physical activities such as boxing, football, bicycling, swimming, sprinting,
`high jumping, gymnastics. Pet. 13–14 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:28–33,
`5:12–17). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing. In particular, Stewart discloses a portable system
`designed to measure and record acceleration data in real time in both
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`translational and angular directions of an individual’s head during normal
`activity. Ex. 1004, 4:28–31.
`
`ii. “a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of
`said movement;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses a device with
`accelerometers to measure movement in three dimensions. Pet. 15–17
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:13–16, 6:21–57, Fig. 2A). On this record, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate showing. In particular,
`Stewart discloses three orthogonal accelerometers 10–12 that “provide data
`which corresponds directly to [the] motion of the head in three dimensional
`space . . . .” Ex. 1004, 6:13–16.
`
`iii. “a power source;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart describes a power source
`such as a battery. Pet. 18–19 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 10:26–33, Fig. 1). On
`this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate showing.
`In particular, Stewart discloses power supply 54, which is a simple 9-volt
`battery. Ex. 1004, 10:26–34.
`
`iv. “a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power
`source;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses that processor 52 is
`connected to the movement sensor (10, 11, 12) via A/D converter 46.
`Pet. 20–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 8:40–43, Fig. 1). Petitioner further asserts
`that Stewart discloses that processor 52 and power supply 54 are mounted to
`a PCB (printed circuit board), which enables the processor to be connected
`to and receive power from the power supply. See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004,
`7:12–14, 8:36–37, 10:24–26). On this record, we are persuaded that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`Petitioner has made an adequate showing. In particular, Stewart discloses
`that the output of the first accelerometer 10 is input to channel 0 of A/D
`converter 46, the output of second accelerometer 11 is input to channel 1,
`and the output of third accelerometer 12 is input to channel 2. Ex. 1004,
`8:40–43. Stewart further discloses that analog-to-digital A/D converter 46 is
`connected to the data bus of processor 52 through serial peripheral
`interface 53. Ex. 1004, 9:30–32, Fig. 1. With respect to the battery, Stewart
`discloses that accelerometers 10, 12 are mounted at right angles on printed
`circuit board (PCB), together with the processor 52; that battery 54 is
`mounted to the PCB with a clip; and that the exact voltage and capacity of
`the power supply 54 is in large part a function of the power requirements of
`processor 52 and other components on the PCB. Ex. 1004, 7:12–14, 8:36–
`37, 10:24–26.
`
`v. “said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and
`responding to said movement data based on user-defined operational
`parameters;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses that the processor
`receives commands through a wired or wireless interface, or commands
`entered locally, e.g., through a keypad. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:51–63).
`Petitioner further asserts that Stewart discloses that the processor is set to
`record only when accelerations exceed a defined threshold. Id. (citing Ex.
`1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`made an adequate showing.
`Stewart discloses that data is recorded in real-time, and may be
`processed in either real-time or at a later time. Ex. 1004, 5:6–9. Stewart
`discloses that its system could be modified to record in real-time detailed
`data only when accelerations exceed a defined threshold. Id. at 5:4–6.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Rush teaches user-defined threshold values that
`are adjusted based on the physical characteristics of the user. Id. at 22
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1006, 9:54–58, 3:13–18). Petitioner argues that it would
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to enable the user to adjust
`acceleration thresholds based on the teachings in Rush. Id. at 23 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 54–55). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`made an adequate showing. In particular, Rush discloses that thresholds are
`adjustable. Ex. 1006, 9:54–58. We determine that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood of showing that it would have been obvious to
`modify Stewart to allow thresholds to be adjustable in order to accommodate
`players of different ages and sizes and to minimize accidental actuation of
`the signal, as taught by Rush. See id.; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54.
`Petitioner further asserts that Rush discloses responding to events with
`an audible or visual indicator. Id. at 23 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1006, 9:42–45). On
`this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate showing.
`For example, Rush’s helmet may produce the audible and/or visual signal so
`that the supervisor or coach will be alerted to the spearing action of the
`wearer and thus be able to caution the individual against such an action.
`Ex. 1006, 9:42–54. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill to include the signaling feature of Rush as well in
`order to provide real-time feedback to a user. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 58).
`At the current stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient
`showing that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add a
`signaling function, as taught by Rush, to Stewart’s device in order to prevent
`injuries in the event of a dangerous condition. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 58.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`vi. “detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data, and at
`least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the
`movement data,”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses detecting an event
`based on received acceleration data and a defined/predetermined threshold.
`Pet. 25 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11). Petitioner argues that it
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to enable the user to
`define Stewart’s acceleration thresholds as taught by Rush. Id. On this
`record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate showing. We
`determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of showing
`that it would have been obvious to modify Stewart to allow thresholds to be
`adjustable in order to accommodate players of different ages and sizes and to
`minimize accidental actuation of the signal, as taught by Rush. See
`Ex. 1006, 9:54–58.
`
`vii. “and storing 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”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses that its processor
`may record in real-time detailed data only when the accelerations exceed a
`defined threshold. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:4–7). Petitioner further asserts
`that Rush teaches a recording the time and date of each instance in which the
`potentially injurious activity occurs.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:26–28).
`On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate
`showing. In particular, Rush discloses a recording means that may record
`the time and date of each instance in which potentially injurious activity
`occurs. Ex. 1006, 10:26–28.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill to enable Stewart’s processor to store time and date
`information reflecting a time at which the acceleration data exceeded a user-
`defined threshold in order to provide better information for medical
`personnel evaluating potential head injuries. Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 62–64). At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`has made a sufficient showing. As Dr. Singer avers, storing the date/time of
`each detected potential head injury would have predictably aided in the
`determination of appropriate limits for future participation in sports based on
`the recorded dates/times of the detected events. Ex. 1010 ¶ 64.
`
`viii. “at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device;”
`Petitioner relies on similar evidence as for the limitation “said
`microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to
`said movement data based on user-defined operational parameters,” and we
`determine that Petitioner has made an adequate showing on this record, for
`similar reasons. See Section II.B.3.a.v., supra.
`
`ix. “a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses user-defined
`commands that establish the general parameters of the sampling of
`accelerometers, e.g., when to start, when to stop, and sampling rate, and that
`it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill that the
`processor accesses a real-time clock, or in the alternative, that it would have
`been obvious to do so as a predictable way of enabling the processor to
`determine the current time. Pet. 28–30 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:35–37, 12:43–
`44; 1010 ¶¶ 44, 46–50). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`made an adequate showing. In particular, Stewart discloses that commands
`may be entered on a keypad, e.g., “when to start, the sampling rate, and
`when to stop.” Ex. 1004, 8:58–59, 1161–63. At this stage of the
`proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has made an adequate showing that
`a person of ordinary skill would have understood Stewart to inherently
`disclose a real-time clock connected to the processor. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 49.
`We note that Petitioner also (elsewhere) relies on Rush for timestamping
`functions. See Section II.B.3.a.vii, supra.
`
`x. “memory for storing said movement data;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses a memory card for
`storing accelerometer data. Pet. 30–31 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:60–63,
`8:64–9:3, Fig. 1). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made
`an adequate showing. In particular, Stewart discloses that the data from the
`accelerometers are recorded on a memory card or other mass memory means
`installed in the helmet, and are recorded in real time. Ex. 1004, 4:60–63.
`
`xi. “an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the
`occurrence of user-defined events;”
`Petitioner relies on similar evidence as for the limitation “said
`microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to
`said movement data based on user-defined operational parameters,” i.e.,
`Rush’s audible or visual signal, and we determine that Petitioner has made
`an adequate showing on this record, for similar reasons. See Section
`II.B.3.a.v., supra.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`xii. “wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said
`movement;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Stewart discloses a movement sensor
`comprising translational and angular accelerometers measuring the
`acceleration, velocity, and displacement of the user’s movement. See
`Pet. 15–17, 32 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:21–57, 7:35–38). On this record, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate showing. In particular,
`Stewart discloses three orthogonal accelerometers 10–12 of the present
`embodiment provide aggregated data relating to three translational directions
`and two angular accelerations. Ex. 1004, 6:21–57. Stewart further discloses
`that the accelerometers “perform on-board calculation of velocity and
`displacement.” Ex. 1004, 7:35–38.
`
`Summary
`For the preceding reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions that the
`combination of Stewart and Rush would have rendered obvious the subject
`matter of independent claim 1.
`b. Remaining Claims
`Based on our independent review of the Petition, we determine that
`Petitioner has made an adequate showing for the remaining claims
`challenged in this ground, which each depend from claim 1. See Pet. 32–36.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 11 over Stewart, Rush, and Church
`(Ex. 1008)
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over
`Stewart, Rush, and Church. Pet. 37–38.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`1. Overview of Church
`Church is titled “Lifting Monitoring and Exercise Training System”
`and relates to a system for “monitoring the lifting motion and/or exercise
`training of an individual.” Ex. 1008, [54], 1:14–15. Church described a
`drawback in prior art devices, i.e., that such devices did not tend to be
`directed to a specific muscle group. Id. at 1:42–50.
`Church discloses one embodiment using an electromyographic sensor
`to measure muscle force and an alternative embodiment using a goniometer
`as a sensing component to monitor lifting angle. See id. at 1:16–22, 1:62–
`224, 3:40–50. The sensing components are coupled to a control means
`comprising a microprocessor, which acts as an internal clock and is
`interfaced to an electronic memory and to an auditory or vibrational
`indicator. Id. at 3:44–51.
`
`2. Analysis
`In its Petition, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as to how the
`limitations of claim 11 are disclosed in, or obvious over, the combination of
`Stewart, Rush, and Church. Pet. 37–38.
`
`Claim 11
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein said
`output indicator is tactile.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–6. Petitioner asserts, inter alia,
`that Church discloses a vibrational indicator. See Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1008,
`3:47–51). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing. Church discloses indicator means 27, which can be
`auditory and/or vibrational for indicating to the user a lifting condition
`which exceeds preset parameters programmed into the microprocessor.
`Ex. 1008, 3:47–51.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill to modify Stewart’s processor to “buzz” the user as a means of
`communicating information, which was one of a finite number of solutions
`to the well-known problem of communicating information to a user.
`Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 70–71). At this stage of the proceeding, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing. We determine
`that a person of ordinary skill may have sought a vibrational indicator as a
`means of alerting a user of a potential injury condition.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56–58, 140, 144, and
`146 over Richardson (Ex. 1009) and Stewart
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56–58, 140, 144, and
`146 are unpatentable as obvious over Richardson and Stewart. Pet. 38–73.
`
`1. Overview of Richardson
`Richardson is titled “Portable Aerobic Fitness Monitor for Walking
`and Running,” and
`relates to a personal fitness monitoring device that may be worn
`by an individual while the individual is exercising. The fitness
`monitoring device monitors the aerobic fitness of the user as the
`user exercises and provides the user with information about the
`current exercise session, an assessment of the user’s current
`fitness level, and a prediction of the user's future fitness.
`
`Ex. 1009, [54], 1:5–13.
`Richardson discloses, inter alia, a heart rate monitor and a pedometer
`for determining the locomotion. Id. at 1:18–22. Richardson further
`discloses alarms based on monitoring when an alarm trigger is exceeded,
`e.g., a heart alarm trigger when a heart rate is exceeded, a milepost alarm
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`trigger when a distance is exceeded, and a cruise control alarm when a
`chosen speed is exceeded. Id. at 30:12–24.
`
`2. Analysis
`In its Petition, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as to how the
`limitations of claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146 are disclosed
`in, or obvious over, the combination of Richardson and Stewart. Pet. 38–73.
`
`a. Claim 1
`i. “A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts
`during physical activity, said device comprising:”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Richardson discloses a personal
`fitness monitoring device. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1009, 16:42–46,
`Fig. 7). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing. In particular, Richardson discloses an accelerometer that
`measures the vertical accelerations caused by each step of an individual.
`Ex. 1009, Abstract, 1:27–31.
`
`ii. “a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of
`said movement;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, an accelerometer subsystem that
`measures movement data. Pet. 42–45 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1009, 1:27–31, 6:26–
`32). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate
`showing. In particular, Richardson discloses subsystem 025 that measures
`the on-going instantaneous profile of the user’s movement as magnitudes of
`acceleration in or near the vertical plane, e.g., as a person is walking or
`running. Ex. 1009, 6:26–29.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`iii. “a power source”;“a microprocessor connected to said movement
`sensor and to said power source;”
`Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that Richardson discloses
`microprocessor 123 coupled to power system 146 and accelerometer 025.
`Pet. 46–47 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1009, 16:8–14, 16:35–38, Fig. 9).
`On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate
`showing. In particular, Richardson discloses that accelerometer
`subsystem 025 consists of semiconductor accelerometer 122 whose output
`goes through signal conditioner 120, then to single-channel A/D
`converter 118, then to processor