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
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’576 PATENT ............................................................. 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’576 PATENT ..................... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY ...................................................... 4
`C. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............. 8
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................................... 8
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(A) .................................. 8
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)(1)-(2) ............. 8
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)(3) ................................. 9
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 9
`A. GROUND 1: STEWART IN VIEW OF RUSH RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, AND
`12 OBVIOUS ........................................................................................................... 9
`B. GROUND 2: STEWART IN VIEW OF RUSH IN FURTHER VIEW OF CHURCH RENDERS
`CLAIM 11 OBVIOUS .............................................................................................. 36
`C. GROUND 3: RICHARDSON IN VIEW OF STEWART RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 13, 14,
`56-58, 140, 144, AND 146 OBVIOUS ..................................................................... 38
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 74
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................. 75
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(B)(1) ........................... 75
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(B)(2) ........................................ 75
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) ...................... 76
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(4) ................................. 76
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 to Brann
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Exhibit 1003 File History of Reexamination Request No. 90/013,201
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al.
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/020,271
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III
`Exhibit 1007
`(left intentionally blank)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,474,083 to Church et al.
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et al.
`Exhibit 1010 Declaration of Dr. Andrew C. Singer and Appendix A
`Exhibit 1011
`the
`for
`J.R.W. Morris, “Accelerometry – A Technique
`Measurement of Human Body Movements,” J. Biomechanics,
`Vol. 6, Pergamon Press (1973, pp. 729-736)
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent No. 3,797,010 to Adler et al.
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 to Gesink et al.
`Exhibit 1014 UK Patent Application No. GB 2,225,459A to Holder
`Exhibit 1015 C. Verplaetse, “Inertial proprioceptive devices: Self-motion-
`sensing toys and tools,” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, Nos. 3&4
`(1996, pp. 639-650)
`Exhibit 1016
`(left intentionally blank)
`Exhibit 1017 Robert C Cantu, “Head injuries in sport,” Br J Sports Med 30
`(289-296; 1996)
`Exhibit 1018 Affidavit of Service dated February 22, 2017
`Exhibit 1019 Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. respectfully
`
`request inter partes review (“IPR”) 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 (“the ’576 patent”).
`
`As demonstrated below, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’576 PATENT
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’576 Patent
`
`The ‘576 patent generally describes “[a]n electronic device, system and
`
`method to monitor and train an individual on proper motion during physical
`
`movement.” EX1001, Abstract. The ‘576 patent purportedly solves problems with
`
`prior motion sensing/monitoring devices that either record motion, but “do not
`
`warn the device wearer when the wearer is nearing, or has reached, a potential
`
`angle of movement” or warn the wearer of an improper movement, but do not
`
`analyze the detected motion data. Id. at 1:22-54. The alleged key feature of the
`
`“invention is that it gives instant information to the wearer at the moment of
`
`incorrect movement and also records the information for future reference and
`
`analysis.” Id. at 6:16-19. Thus, the key feature of the ‘576 patent’s invention was
`
`merely combining known features of the prior art motion sensing devices.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`The system includes a movement measuring device 12 and a download
`
`device 14 connected to a computer 16:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1; see also, id. at 3:22-24.
`
`The movement measuring device 12 “is designed to be physically attached
`
`to a user” and “may be worn by the individual being monitored in a variety of
`
`positions based on the specific movement being observed.” Id. at 3:24-31. The
`
`measuring device 12 includes internal components including a microprocessor 32,
`
`movement sensor 30, and clock 46:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4.
`
`The movement sensor 30 “detects movement and measures the associated
`
`data such as angle, speed, and distance.” Id. at 4:37-40. The movement sensor
`
`may be a multi-axis accelerometer or multiple accelerometers each arranged to
`
`measure movement data in a different plane. Id. at 4:41-48. In one embodiment,
`
`the movement sensor is external to the measuring device and connected via a cable
`
`17. Id. at 3:47-52, Fig. 2C.
`
`The microprocessor 32 receives movement data from the sensor 30 and
`
`analyzes it to determine whether a recordable event has occurred. Id. at 5:40-47.
`
`“If a recordable event occurs, the microprocessor 32 retrieves the date/time stamp
`
`from the clock 46 and records the event information along with the date/time stamp
`
`in memory 50.” Id. at 5:44-47. The device may monitor a wide variety of events.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Id. at 6:19-21. One exemplary event is “any movement which surpasses any
`
`identified angle limit of movement.” Id. at 6:22-26. The user enters thresholds and
`
`other parameters defining events via an I/O port connected to an external
`
`computer. Id. at 5:59-66, 7:6-23.
`
`When an event occurs, the device may also provide a visual, audible, and/or
`
`tactile warning to the user via an output indicator 44. Id. at 5:20-27, 7:32-35. “The
`
`output indicators 44 consist of any combination of audible, visual, or tactile
`
`indicators for communicating with the wearer of the device.” Id. at 5:20-23.
`
`Data may be downloaded from the device 12 to the computer 16 wirelessly
`
`or via the download device 14, which may be a docking station, for example. Id. at
`
`8:30-33, Fig. 1. Computer 16 includes software “used to interpret the data and
`
`produce a number of reports and histories.” Id. at 8:40-43.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ’576 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/929,230 (“the ‘230
`
`Application”), filed on November 21, 1997. EX1001. For the purposes of this
`
`IPR, it is assumed that all Challenged Claims are entitled to this priority date.
`
`During original prosecution, the three original independent claims were amended
`
`to limit the device to a “portable, self-contained” device that is capable of
`
`measuring “unrestrained movement in any direction.” EX1002, 49-53. The
`
`examiner then allowed the 29 claims to issue as U.S. Pat. No. 6,059,576. Id. at 23.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Fourteen years later, the Patent Owner (“PO”) filed a reexamination request
`
`of Claims 1, 13, 20, and 21 because PO believed a substantial new question of
`
`patentability existed due to newly found prior art. EX1003, 481. The
`
`reexamination request also included over one hundred new dependent claims. Id.
`
`at 448-469. PO cited several references including U.S. Patent No. 6,266,623 to
`
`Vock et al. (“Vock”) and its parent, U.S. Patent No. 5,636,146 to Flentov et al. Id.
`
`The Examiner agreed that the cited references raised a substantial new question of
`
`patentability and subsequently rejected Claims 1 and 20 as anticipated by Vock,
`
`and Claims 1, 13, and 20 (among others) as obvious in view of Vock and a
`
`secondary reference, U.S. Patent No. 5,429,140 to Burdea et al. Id. at 254-297.
`
`In the subsequent response, PO amended each of the independent claims to
`
`include the following limitation:
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data
`and at least one of the user-defined operational parameters, 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
`
`Id. at 168, 170, 172.
`
`The Examiner rejected each of the amended claims. Id. at 141. Regarding
`
`the newly added limitation above, the Examiner explained:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`The Vock device is for “detecting a first user-defined event
`[such as a first run down the mountain] based on at least one of
`the user-defined operation parameters and the movement data”
`that records the physical activity that occurs from the top of the
`run to the bottom of the run. . . .
`
`The at least one user-defined operational parameter is a
`predetermined threshold when the user at the top of the run
`predetermines when the threshold occurs at the end of the run.
`At the end of the run, the user pushes button 58 a second time
`to stop recording movement data. When the user stops
`recording movement data, the microprocessor, in response
`thereto stores the movement data along with the time stamp as
`taught by Burdea.
`
`Id. at 144.
`
`In response, PO argued that the Examiner’s identified “detection of a first
`
`user-defined event” is not made by the microprocessor based on movement data.
`
`82, 88 (PO explaining that its position regarding Flentov also applied to Vock).
`
`Instead, PO argued that Vock teaches, “the detection of the event is solely based on
`
`the button 58 being pushed and not based on any movement data, let alone a
`
`microprocessor making the detection based on such movement data.” Id. at 83,
`
`88(emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`PO also argued that the proposed combination of Vock with Burdea does not
`
`teach the limitation “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” (“time
`
`stamp limitation”). Specifically, the PO argued, “proposed combination of
`
`[Flentov/Vock] and Burdea would reflect the time at which the data captured
`
`during the skier’s run down the hill (i.e., at the end of the session) is updated to a
`
`database, not a time at which the movement data causing the end of the run
`
`(alleged event) occurred.” Id. at 84 (emphasis in original). Thus, “the time stamp
`
`information in the proposed modification has no relationship to the ski data itself
`
`or the time at which the skier pushes the button.” Id. at 85.
`
`The Examiner agreed and subsequently issued the reexamination certificate
`
`based on the following reasons for patentability:
`
`However, there is no teaching or fair suggestion to detect, using
`the microprocessor, a first user-defined even based on the
`movement data and at least one user-defined operational
`parameters regarding the movement data and storing in memory
`first event information related to the detected first user-defined
`event along with first time stamp information reflecting a time
`at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred.
`
`Id. at 17.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`C.
`
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`As of November 21, 1997, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(PHOSITA) 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 embedded signal processing systems or a related field. EX1010, ¶38.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’576 patent is eligible for IPR; Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR; and this Petition is filed less than one year
`
`after the Petitioners and any other real parties-in-interest were served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’576 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(2)
`
`Petitioners request that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-14, 56-58, 140, 144, and 146 be
`
`found unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 9, 10, and 12 are obvious under §
`103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al. (“Stewart”)
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III (“Rush”)
`Ground 2: Claim 11 is obvious under § 103(a) over Stewart in
`view of Rush in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,083 to
`Church et al. (“Church”)
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56-58, 140, 144, and 146 are
`
`Exhibits
`
`EX1004,
`EX1005,
`EX1006
`
`EX1004,
`EX1005,
`EX1006,
`EX1008
`EX1009,
`EX1004,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`obvious under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to
`Richardson et al. (“Richardson”) in view of Stewart.
`
`Exhibits
`EX1005
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)
`
`The ’576 patent expired on November 21, 2017. “The Board’s review of the
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.” In re
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, the standard set forth in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) applies,
`
`in that “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning’” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention.” Under the Phillips standard, claim terms 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, in light of the language of the
`
`claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
`
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1: Stewart in view of Rush Renders Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10,
`and 12 Obvious
`
`Stewart was filed on June 11, 1997 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Application No. 60/020,271 (“Stewart Provisional”), which was filed on June 14,
`
`1996. EX1004. Accordingly, Stewart has an effective filing date of June 14, 1996
`
`based on the filing date of the Stewart Provisional.1 Petitioners have provided
`
`cites to both Stewart (EX1004) and the Stewart Provisional (EX1005) to
`
`demonstrate that the relevant subject matter relied upon by Petitioners was carried
`
`over from the Stewart Provisional. Infra. Stewart therefore qualifies as prior art
`
`with regard to the ’576 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) (pre-AIA) under both the
`
`June 11, 1997 and June 14, 1996 dates.
`
`Stewart was not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the
`
`‘576 patent or during its subsequent reexamination proceeding. Supra, II.B.
`
`
`1 In the event that PO attempts to show that it is entitled to a priority date prior to June 11,
`
`1997 but subsequent to June 14, 1996, Petitioners will show that the Stewart Provisional
`
`provides support for Stewart under §112(1). Petitioners have no burden to establish that
`
`Stewart is entitled to the earlier June 14, 1996 priority date unless and until PO makes an
`
`argument that it is entitled to a priority date preceding June 11, 1997. See Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“[Petitioner] did not have the burden of producing evidence relating to the [prior art]
`
`provisional application until after [Patent Owner] made its argument regarding reduction
`
`to practice.”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Stewart discloses “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.” EX1004, 4:28-31. Stewart’s primary embodiment is
`
`directed to monitoring the wearer’s head, but “monitoring of other body parts, or
`
`the body in general is envisioned.” Id. at 4:32-33. Stewart’s monitoring device
`
`includes, among other things, accelerometers, a processor and a memory for
`
`storing the accelerometer data. Id. at Abstract, Fig. 1. Stewart teaches the
`
`allegedly patentable feature of detecting an event based on movement data. Supra,
`
`Section II.B. Specifically, Stewart’s processor detects an event, such as a spearing
`
`movement in football, by comparing accelerometer data to a predetermined
`
`threshold. Id. at 5:4-7, 14:6-11.
`
`The ‘576 patent “relates to the field of electronic training and safety devices
`
`used to monitor human physical activity.” EX1001, 1:6-7. Moreover, the
`
`Challenged Claims are more generally directed to “monitoring movement of body
`
`parts.” Id. at Claim 1. Therefore, the field of endeavor of the ‘576 patent must at
`
`least include systems, devices, and/or methods used to monitor human physical
`
`activity. As discussed above, Stewart discloses systems, devices, and methods of
`
`monitoring the user’s head and other body parts during normal physical activities.
`
`Therefore, Stewart is the in same field of endeavor and is analogous to the claimed
`
`invention of the ’567 patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Rush issued on August 20, 1996 and therefore qualifies as prior art with
`
`regard to the ‘576 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) (pre-AIA). EX1006. Rush was
`
`not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ‘576 patent or during
`
`its subsequent reexamination proceeding. Supra, II.B. Rush describes a
`
`monitoring device mounted in a football helmet that “provide[s] a signal or
`
`indication that the wearer has participated in activity which can be potentially
`
`dangerous to the wearer.” Id. at 1:21-23. The football helmet includes a sensor
`
`used to detect axial impacts indicative of events such as spearing movements. Id.
`
`at 9:48-30. The sensor is “adjustable so that the magnitude of the axial impact
`
`experienced may be varied to accommodate players of different ages and sizes and
`
`to minimize accidental actuation of the signal.” Id. at 9:54-58; see also, id. at 9:16-
`
`19. The wearer and/or coaches are alerted immediately upon detection of the
`
`spearing movement via audible and/or visible signals. Id. at 3:13-18, 9:42-54,
`
`10:31-41.
`
`In addition to alerting the user when a spearing movement is detected,
`
`Rush’s monitoring device also transmits a signal to a recording device (e.g., hard
`
`disk drive) that “record[s] instances in which the potential injurious activity has
`
`taken place” including “the time and date of each instance.” Id. at 10:20-30. Thus,
`
`Rush teaches the alleged “key feature” of the ‘576 patent invention of giving
`
`instant information to the wearer at the moment of incorrect movement and also
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`recording the information for future reference. Supra, Section II.A. Additionally,
`
`Rush’s disclosure of storing a time at which the movement data causing the
`
`detection of the spearing event occurred teaches the allegedly patentable timestamp
`
`limitation. Supra, Section II.B. Since Rush is directed to an electronic device used
`
`to monitor human physical activity, it is in the same field of endeavor and is
`
`analogous to the claimed invention of the ’567 patent.
`
`Claim 1
`
`1.
`1[pre]. A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts
`during physical activity, said device comprising:
`
` Stewart discloses “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.” EX1004, 4:28-31 (EX1005, 16:3-6).
`
`“While developed specifically for the head, monitoring of other body parts, or
`
`the body in general is envisioned.” Id. at 4:32-33 (emphasis added) (EX1005,
`
`16:6-9). Stewart’s system includes a portable device that is self-contained within a
`
`piece of conventional sporting gear, such as a helmet:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2A (EX1005, Fig. 2A).
`
`The device monitors the movement of the head or other body parts during
`
`physical activities such as boxing, football, bicycling, swimming, sprinting, high
`
`jumping, gymnastics, etc.:
`
`The present invention is applicable for use with other parts of
`the body. For instance, other applications could include the
`study of the acceleration of body parts in relation to each other
`(e.g., among pole vaulters, high jumpers, or gymnasts), or to
`understand factors affecting acceleration in sprinters and
`swimmers (e.g., starting and turns).
`
`Id. at 5:12-17 (EX1005, 17:27-34).
`
`The specific type helmet 30 is any which is conventionally used
`in the sport for which the invention is being applied. For
`instance, in this embodiment, the helmet 30 is a boxing helmet.
`Other helmets which the present invention is applicable to, but
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`in no way is limited to, are football helmets, lacrosse helmets,
`hockey helmets, bicycle helmets, and motorcycle helmets.
`
`Id. at 6:1-7 (EX1005, 19:15-22).
`
`[1(a)] a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained
`movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of said movement;
`
`Stewart’s device includes a movement sensor comprising at least three and
`
`at most nine accelerometers. Id. at 6:29-35
`
`(EX1005, 20:13-31). The
`
`accelerometers “provide data which corresponds directly to [the] motion of the
`
`head in three dimensional space.” Id. at 6:13-16 (emphasis added) (EX1005,
`
`19:31-34). Placing the device in a conventional piece of sporting gear allows the
`
`accelerometers to measure unrestrained movement in three dimensions (i.e., “any
`
`direction”) and allows “the sports person to wear in the relevant sports activity
`
`without hindering, inhibiting or otherwise affecting the ability of the user to
`
`perform the sport.” Id. at 6:24-28 (EX1005, 20:7-12); see also, id. at 6:13-16
`
`(EX1005, 19:31-34).
`
`Moreover, it provides the ability to measure an individual's
`cumulative exposure to translational and angular accelerations
`while allowing unaffected performance of everyday sports and
`activities.
`
`Id. at 4:40-44 (EX1005, 16:18-22).
`
`It was also important that the electronic components used in the
`HAT be small enough to be contained inside the helmet without
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`significant change to the structure and function of the
`conventional helmet. In this way, the HAT is comfortable
`enough for the sports person to wear in the relevant
`everyday sports activity without hindering, inhibiting, or
`otherwise affecting the ability of the user to perform the
`sport.
`
`In the first embodiment of the present invention, three
`accelerometers 10-12 are installed orthogonal to one another
`inside a boxing helmet 30. Although three accelerometers 10-12
`are considered to be minimum, as many as nine accelerometers
`can be used so as to uniquely resolve measurement of the
`translational, angular and normal components of acceleration of
`the head.
`
`The three accelerometers 10-12 are capable of providing point
`estimates of head acceleration at
`the
`location of
`the
`accelerometers
`10-12.
`However,
`theoretically,
`six
`accelerometers provide more detailed data sufficient to resolve
`the head motions into three translational and three rotational
`accelerations about the center of mass of the head. The
`maximum number of nine accelerometers would provide the
`ability to separate the tangential and normal components of
`acceleration.
`
`The three orthogonal accelerometers 10-12 of the present
`embodiment provide aggregated data
`relating
`to
`three
`translational directions and two angular accelerations, but not
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`sufficient information to separate translational and rotational
`components uniquely. Of course, any
`two
`translational
`accelerations and associated angular acceleration can be
`measured by the use of three suitably located and oriented
`accelerometers as disclosed by the present invention. The more
`accelerometers that are implemented, the more detailed the
`information provided will be, and the opportunity provided to
`resolve (with suitable location and orientation) each of the
`various components of acceleration.
`
`Id. at 6:21-57 (emphasis added) (EX1005, 20:3-21:9).
`
`Multi-axis accelerometers might also be used. Accelerometers
`which perform on-board calculation of velocity and
`displacement might also be used to track events and permit
`additional kinematic and kinetic analyses to be performed.
`
` Id. at 7:34-38 (EX1005, 22:26-31); see also, id. at 4:28-59, Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 5
`
`(EX1005, 16:3-17:3, Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 5).
`
`Stewart’s disclosure of using multi-axis accelerometers or multiple
`
`accelerometers oriented to measure movement along three orthogonal axes is
`
`similar to embodiments described in the ‘576 patent specification where the
`
`movement sensor “is an accelerometer which is capable of detecting angles of
`
`movement in multiple planes as well as the velocity at which the movement
`
`occurs” or “multiple accelerometers each capable of measuring angles of
`
`movement in only one plane . . . oriented within the device 12 so that movement in
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`multiple planes may be detected.” EX1001, 4:41-48.
`
`Stewart’s accelerometers generate signals indicative of the head’s movement
`
`that are output to an A/D converter 46:
`
`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. If more than three accelerometers are
`used, then the appropriate number of additional channels and/or
`A/D converters are implemented. . . . [¶] It is of course possible
`and envisioned that accelerometers with digital outputs may be
`used. Some digital accelerometers currently available output
`pulses at a varying frequency, depending upon the acceleration.
`Such serial output can be fed to counters for sampling by the
`processor 52.
`
`EX1004, 8:40-57 (EX1005, 25:3-24).
`
`[1(b)] a power source;
`
` Stewart’s device includes a power supply 54, which is a power source such
`
`as a battery:
`
`Although many conventional power supplies are possible, the
`power supply 54 for the boxing helmet of the present
`embodiment is a simple 9-volt battery which is held on the PCB
`with a snap-in holder. The battery may instead be mounted
`separately in the helmet and internally wired to the PCB. Other
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`types of power sources, including solar cells, can be used as
`determined by the particular application.
`
`Id. at 10:26-33 (EX1005, 28:37-29:8).
`
`Id. at Fig. 1 (annotated) (EX1005, Fig. 1); see also, id. at 8:36-38 (“The battery 54
`
`is mounted to the PCB with a clip, although the battery 54 may be mounted
`
`anywhere inside the helmet 30 and preferably toward the back.”) (EX1005, 24:36-
`
`
`
`25:2).
`
`[1(c)] a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power
`source, said microprocessor capable of
`
`Stewart’s device includes a processor 52 that “comprises any conventional
`
`processor device, including a microcontroller or a microprocessor, and controls
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`the operation of the HAT system.” Id. at 8:58-62 (emphasis added) (EX1005,
`
`25:26-29). Both the processor 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. Id. at 7:12-14 (“For ease of manufacture, two
`
`accelerometers 10, 12 are mounted at right angles on a printed circuit board (PCB),
`
`together with the processor 52 . . .”) (EX1005, 21:36-22:2); 8:36-37 (“The battery
`
`54 is mounted to the PCB with a clip . . .”) (EX1005, 24:36-37); 10:24-26 (“The
`
`exact voltage and capacity of the power supply 54 is in large part a function of
`
`the power requirements of the processor 52 and other components on the
`
`PCB.”) (emphasis added) (EX1005, 28:34-37).
`
`The processor 52 is also connected to the movement sensor (10, 11, 12) via
`
`an A/D converter 46:
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`Id. at Fig. 1 (EX1005, Fig. 1); see also, id. at 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.”) (EX1005, 25:3-7); 9:30-32 (“In FIG. 1,
`
`the analog-to-digital A/D converter 46 is connected to the data bus of the processor
`
`52 through a serial peripheral interface 53.”) (EX1005, 26:33-36).
`
`[1(c)(i)] receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`
`Stewart discloses user-defined commands that “set the general parameters of
`
`the data storage operation of the HAT.” Id. at 11:53-54 (EX1005, 32:1-2). The
`
`processor receives commands through a wired or wireless interface, or the
`
`commands may “be entered locally, such as through a keypad mounted on the
`
`helmet, and electronic key, or other means to establish general parameters
`
`regarding the sampling of the accelerometers, e.g., when to start, the sampling rate,
`
`and when to stop.” Id. at 11:51-63 (EX1005, 32:9-14).
`
`In one embodiment, the processor is set “to record in real-time detailed data
`
`only when the accelerations exceed a defined threshold.” Id. at 5:4-7 (EX1005,
`
`17:19-21); 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
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`player is improperly using his helmet (e.g., illegal spearing).”) (emphasis added)
`
`(EX1005, 37:10-16). Stewart’s processor receives accelerometer data from the
`
`A/D converter 46. Id. at 8:64-67 (EX1005, 25:31-35). Then the processor
`
`interprets the received acceleration data to determine if the accelerations exceed
`
`defined/predetermined thresholds. Id. at 5:4-7, 14:6-11 (EX1005, 17:19-21, 37:10-
`
`16). If the accelerations do exceed the thresholds, then the processor stores the
`
`associated “real-time detailed data.” Id. at 5:4-7 (EX1005, 17:19-21).
`
`As discussed above, Stewart discloses that user-defined commands control
`
`the data collection operations performed by the processor, and one discl