throbber
Paper 9
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket