`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-00565
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 01
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, do hereby declare:
`
`
`
`1. My name is Vijay K. Madisetti, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`LoganTree, LP (“LoganTree”) as a technical expert in the above-captioned case.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions in regards to the Patent
`
`Owner Response with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ‘576 Patent”) in
`
`response to the IPR Petition submitted by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin
`
`USA, Inc. (“Garmin”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`5, 7-14, 56-58, 140, 144 and 146. My opinions are limited to those Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`2.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (EX1001)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al. (EX1004) (“Stewart”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III (EX1006) (“Rush”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,474,083 to Church et al. (EX1008) (“Church”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et al. (EX1009) (“Richardson”)
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“Pet”)
`
` Declaration of Dr. Andrew C. Singer (EX1010) (“Declaration”)
`
` Transcript of Deposition Testimony of Dr. Andrew C. Singer
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 02
`
`
`
`(“Transcript”)
`
` Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Institution Decision”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS
`
`3. My qualifications
`
`to
`
`testify about
`
`the patent-in-suit, relevant
`
`technology, and the prior art are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix 1. My CV includes my educational background and
`
`work history.
`
`4.
`
`Briefly, I have over thirty years of experience as an electrical and
`
`computer engineer in industry, education, and consulting. I have served as an expert
`
`witness in intellectual property cases and other matters. A list of my prior testimony
`
`is included in my CV attached as Appendix 1.
`
`5.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. I received the Demetri Angelakos
`
`Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of California, Berkeley
`
`and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`6.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a Professor in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been active in the areas of wireless
`
`communications, sensors, internet of things (IoT), digital signal processing,
`
`integrated circuit design (analog & digital), software engineering, system-level
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 03
`
`
`
`
`
`design methodologies and tools, and software systems. I have been the principal
`
`
`
`investigator (“PI”) or co-PI in several active research programs in these areas,
`
`including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors,
`
`the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated
`
`Sensors Laboratory Program, and the United States Air Force Electronics Parts
`
`Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty Award and the NSF’s
`
`Research Initiation Award. I have been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons
`
`Terman Medal by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions
`
`to Electrical Engineering, including authoring a widely-used textbook in the design
`
`of VLSI digital signal processors.
`
`7.
`
`I have developed and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in
`
`hardware and software design for signal processing and wireless communication
`
`circuits at Georgia Tech for the past twenty years. I graduated more than 20 Ph.D.
`
`students that now work as professors or in technical positions around the world.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an active consultant to industry and various research
`
`laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) Lincoln
`
`Labs and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). I have founded
`
`three companies in the areas of embedded software, military chipsets involving
`
`imaging technology, and wireless communications. I have supervised the Ph.D.
`
`dissertations of over twenty engineers in the areas of computer engineering, sensors,
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 04
`
`
`
`
`
`signal processing, communications, rapid prototyping, and system-level design
`
`
`
`methodology, five of which have resulted in thesis prizes or paper awards.
`
`9. My consulting work for MIT Lincoln Labs involved high resolution
`
`imaging for defense applications, where I worked in the area of prototyping complex
`
`and specialized computing systems. My consulting work for Johns Hopkins Applied
`
`Physics Lab (“APL”) mainly involved localization of objects in image fields, where
`
`I worked on identifying targets in video and other sensor fields and identifying
`
`computer architectures and circuits for power and space-efficient designs.
`
`10.
`
`I have developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software and
`
`assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo-cancellation.
`
`11. The first of the companies I founded, VP Technologies, offers products
`
`in the area of semiconductor integrated circuits, including building computing
`
`systems for helicopter imaging systems for the United States Air Force. I remain a
`
`director of VP Technologies. The second of these companies, Soft Networks, LLC,
`
`offers software for multimedia and wireless computing platforms, including the
`
`development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-2 video streams and
`
`imaging codes for multimedia phones. The technology involved with the design,
`
`development, and implementation of the Intel set-top box included parsing the bit
`
`streams, decoding communications protocols, extracting image and video data, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 05
`
`
`
`
`
`then processing for subsequent display or storage. The third of these companies,
`
`
`
`Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding or decoding for
`
`capturing high quality video at very low bit rates, with primary application for
`
`wireless video systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have been active in the area of 4G-related communications in several
`
`areas of technologies, including orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM)-multiple input multiple output (MIMO) communications systems for
`
`several years, and some of my publications in this area include “Frequency
`
`Dependent Space-Interleaving of MIMO OFDM Systems,” Proc. IEEE Radio and
`
`Wireless Conference (RAWCON ’03), 2003; “Embedded Alamouti Space Time
`
`Codes for High Rate and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. Of IEEE Asilomar
`
`Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes
`
`for Fast Decoding in Time Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications
`
`(2011).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored several books, including VLSI Digital
`
`Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital Signal Processing Handbook
`
`(CRC Press, 1998). I am Editor of the three-volume DSP Handbook set (Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals; Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards; and Volume 3: Wireless, Networking,
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 06
`
`
`
`
`
`Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing), which was
`
`
`
`published in 2010 by CRC Press in Boca Raton, Florida.
`
`14. Additional representative peer-reviewed publications in the area of
`
`wireless communications are the following: (i) Turkboylari, M. and Madisetti, V.K.,
`
`“Effect of Handoff Delay on System Performance of TDMA Cellular Systems,” 4th
`
`International Workshop, Mobile & Wireless Communication Network, pp. 411-415,
`
`2002; (ii) Jatunov, L. and Madisetti, V.K., “Computationally-Efficient SNR
`
`Estimation for Bandlimited Wideband CDMA Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
`
`Wireless Communications, Issue 12, pp. 3480-3491, December 2006, and (iii) N.
`
`Radia, Y. Zhang, M. Tatipamula, V. Madisetti, “Next Generation Applications on
`
`Cellular Networks: Trends, Challenges, and Solutions,” Proceedings on IEEE, vol.
`
`100, Issue 4, pp. 841-854, April 2012.
`
`15.
`
`I am knowledgeable and familiar with standards related to the wireless
`
`and telecommunications systems industry, and as shown in my CV, some of my
`
`papers describe the application of these standards in optimizing design and testing
`
`of these systems. I am also knowledgeable and familiar with microprocessor
`
`architecture and associated software and firmware design for wireless and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations. In addition, since 2017, I have been
`
`Georgia Tech’s official representative to the Third Generation Partnership Project
`
`(3GPP), a standards body responsible for the development of wireless standards. In
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 07
`
`
`
`
`
`this role, I represent European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
`
`
`
`member Georgia Tech in several task forces for the development of 5G
`
`technology(including sensors) and will attend in-person meetings regarding the
`
`same.
`
`16.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks including wireless audio
`
`and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, like cell phones
`
`and Person Digital Assistants. I have worked on designing systems that are efficient
`
`from a performance, size, weight, area, and thermal point of view. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship of the United
`
`States Department of Defense in the late 1990’s, are available for educational use at
`
`http://www.eda.org/rassp. These lectures have been used by several U.S. and
`
`international universities as part of their course work. Some of my recent
`
`publications in the area of design of wireless communications systems and
`
`associated protocols are listed in my CV.
`
`17.
`
`In conjunction with a leading telecom vendor in Asia, through a joint
`
`venture called Soft Networks (“SN”), LLC in Atlanta in the late 1990’s and early
`
`2000’s, I collaborated with a team of engineers to support mobile and wireless
`
`services offerings in India. These involved the design and development of
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 08
`
`
`
`
`
`micropayment services for mobile phones, design of smartphones, soft switches, and
`
`
`
`telecom customer billing and fraud detection algorithms that included establishment
`
`of secure sessions and privileged access to customer account and billing data.
`
`18.
`
`I have proposed several draft proposals for standards to the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) in the area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming
`
`over the internet, including, “A Transport Layer Technology for Improving QoS of
`
`Networked Multimedia Applications,”
`
`IETF Draft,
`
`July
`
`25,
`
`2002
`
`(http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-madisettiargyriou-qos-sctp-00.pdf); “Voice & Video
`
`Over Mobile IP Networks,” IETF Draft, May 2002, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
`
`madisetti-argyriou-voice-video-mip-00); and “Enhancements to ECRTP with
`
`Applications to Robust Header Compression for Wireless,” January 2003, IETF
`
`Draft, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-madisetti-rao-suresh-rohc-00).
`
`19.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest
`
`grade of membership of the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over
`
`300,000 electrical and electronics engineers, with only one-tenth of one percent
`
`(0.1%) of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each
`
`year. Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 09
`
`
`
`
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD
`
`
`
`Dissertation Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF Research Initiation Award in
`
`1990. I was Technical Program Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and
`
`the IEEE Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989 I was
`
`recognized with the Ira Kay IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper presented
`
`at the IEEE Annual Simulation Symposium.
`
`21.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $450/hour for each hour of
`
`services that I provide in connection with this case, including time I spend
`
`consulting, writing this report, giving deposition testimony and testifying. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the content of my testimony and is not
`
`affected by the outcome of the case. If called to testify as to the contents of this
`
`report, I can and would testify truthfully and competently.
`
`III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`22.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that the ‘576 patent has expired and that, in such a case,
`
`the claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in question at the
`
`time of the invention as set forth by the Phillips standard. I have been informed
`
`that the Phillips standard dictates that claim construction begins with the claim
`
`language itself, further informed by the intrinsic evidence of the specification and
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`
`
`23. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on
`
`an invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether prior art references render a claim obvious, counsel has
`
`informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3)
`
`the level of skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done through the eyes of one
`
`of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
`
`24.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that this Board and U.S. courts allow a
`
`technical expert to consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the
`
`fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the disclosures in patents,
`
`trade publications, journal articles, industry standards, product literature and
`
`documentation, texts describing competitive technologies, requests for comment
`
`published by standard setting organizations, and materials from industry
`
`conferences.
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the United States Supreme Court’s most recent
`
`statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was stated in
`
`2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of an explicit
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a
`
`sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. Thus, the
`
`teaching-suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an obviousness
`
`analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
`
`neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.
`
`Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the claim. In other
`
`words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is invalid. I further
`
`understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates consideration of the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the
`
`technological community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of these issues
`
`may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine
`
`the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I understand that the
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of
`
`
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need
`
`not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the problem addressed
`
`by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem. Under the KSR obviousness standard,
`
`common sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion
`
`of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`invention. I understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field
`
`at the time the invention was made; (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems; and (3) the sophistication of the technology in
`
`the field.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that in order to rely on a prior art reference
`
`in an obviousness analysis, the prior art reference must be analogous to the claimed
`
`invention. I also understand that a prior art reference is shown to be analogous to the
`
`claimed invention if it is shown to be either (1) in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor
`
`(even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the field of endeavor is determined by looking at the
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`claims and specification of the challenged patent.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for a prior art reference to be “reasonably pertinent”
`
`to the problem, it must have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his or her problem. To do this, it is necessary to consider the problem
`
`faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the patent’s
`
`specification.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; and (h) teaching away from the invention
`
`in the prior art. I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. OPINION
`
`
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`34. The ‘576 Patent is broadly directed to a portable, self-contained
`
`device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity. EX1001,
`
`2:6-9. The device includes a movement sensor for measuring data associated with
`
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of the
`
`movement. Id. at 4:37-48. The movement sensor is electronically connected to a
`
`microprocessor which receives the signals generated by the movement sensor for
`
`analysis and subsequent processing. Id. at 4:52-55. The microprocessor is
`
`connected to a real-time clock to provide date and time information to the
`
`microprocessor. Id. at 5:35-37. In the ‘576 patent, user-programmable
`
`configuration information can be entered by a user, and the user-programmed
`
`operation parameters are uploaded to the microprocessor for use by the
`
`microprocessor. Id. at 5:59-6:9, 7:6-11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Using the microprocessor, the ‘576 patent interprets the physical
`
`movement data measured by the sensor using the user-programmed operation
`
`parameters and the real-time clock. Id. at 5:40-47. The ‘576 patent stores the
`
`physical movement data in a memory. Id. at 5:57-59. The microprocessor detects
`
`a user-defined event using the physical movement data and the user-programmed
`
`operation parameters. Id. at 40-47. The microprocessor also stores 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.
`
`36. Figure 4 of the ‘576 patent represents a high-level block diagram of
`
`components of device.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
` I have reviewed the patent, its file history, the institution decision,
`
`and all its claims, the alleged prior art references, and provide here the
`
`representative Claims 1 and 13 (with annotation) to provide some technical bases
`
`for my opinions in this declaration.
`
`Claim 1: A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of
`body parts during physical activity, said device comprising:
` (1a): a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals
`indicative of said movement;
`
`(1b): a power source;
`
`(1c): a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to
`said power source, said microprocessor capable of
`
`(1ci): receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined operational parameters,
`
`(1cii): 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
`
`(1ciii): 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;
`
`(1d): at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device; and
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1e): a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`(1f): memory for storing said movement data;
`
`(1g): an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for
`signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`
`(1h): wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity
`of said movement.
`
`Claim 13: A system to aid in training and safety during physical activity,
`said system comprising
`(13a): a portable, self-contained movement measuring device, said
`movement measuring device further comprising
`
`(13b): a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals
`indicative of said movement;
`
`(13c): a power source;
`
`(13d): a microprocessor connected to said power source, said
`microprocessor capable of
`
`(13di): receiving, interpreting, storing, and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined operational parameters,
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(13dii): 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
`
`(13diii): 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;
`
`(13e): at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device;
`
`(13f): a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`(13g): memory for storing said movement data;
`
`(13h): an output indicator connected to said microprocessor;
`
`(13i): a computer running a program capable of interpreting and
`reporting said movement data based on said operational parameters;
`and
`
`(13j): a download device electronically connected to said movement
`measuring device and said computer for transmitting said movement
`data and operational parameters between said movement measuring
`device and said computer for analysis, reporting and operation
`purposes;
`
`(13k): wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and
`
`22
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`velocity of said movement.
`
`
`38.
`
`I have created a version of Figure 4 in a manner that is useful in
`
`interpreting the claims and the prior art of record by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”). This figure is shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure A1
`
`39.
`
` The claimed limitations 1a and 13b require that the sensor 30
`
`measure data associated with unrestricted movement of the body part. This data is
`
`represented by A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure A1.
`
`40.
`
` The claimed limitations 1ci and 13di require that a
`
`microprocessor 32 interpret this measured data. This interpretation is performed
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`by the microprocessor 32 based on user 34 defined operational parameters and the
`
`
`
`real-time clock (RTC) 46. The RTC provides the time stamps as shown in the
`
`diagram A1, corresponding to the data A, B, C and D, respectively. The time
`
`stamp TS_A corresponds to data A, for example.
`
`41.
`
` The claimed limitations 1f and 13g require that the data (that is
`
`measured in claimed limitations 1a and 13b) is stored in memory 50.
`
`42.
`
` The claimed limitations 1cii and 13dii require detecting an
`
`event by the microprocessor 32 (not by the sensor 30!) in the measured data from
`
`the interpretation, the detection based on at least one of the user-defined
`
`operational parameters and the real-time clock. For the purposes of the example of
`
`Figure A1, I refer to this event as that corresponding to data A (interpreted as being
`
`associated with time stamp TS_A). The data values B, C, and D and their
`
`associated time stamps do not generate (at the microprocessor) a detected event, in
`
`this example. The event corresponding to A is denoted by a diamond shape in red
`
`along with its associated time stamp TS_A in memory 50.
`
`43. The claimed limitations 1ciii and 13diii require that this event and
`
`associated time stamp TS_A be also stored in memory 50, as shown in the example
`
`of Figure A1.
`
`
`
`24
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44. In contrast, based on my review of the Stewart reference that is
`
`relied upon by the petitioner and its expert in this matter, the system of Stewart, at
`
`best, discloses an architecture that is represented by Figure A2, shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure A2
`
`45. As Figure A2 clearly shows, there is no disclosure of a
`
`microprocessor that performs the interpretation (based on user-defined operational
`
`parameters and real-time clock) and the detection of the event (based on user-
`
`defined operational parameters and the real-time clock). As per the evidence on
`
`the record cited by petitioner, the user directly operates on the sensor, and the real-
`
`time clock is directly coupled to the sensor. When viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to the petitioner, Stewart, at best, discloses that a sensor is manipulated
`
`
`
`25
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`by the user to only measure data corresponding to certain parameters set by the
`
`
`
`user. Based on my review of the petition and the declaration by Dr. Singer, there is
`
`no evidence that they have cited (See Pet., Garmin cited EX1004, Abstract, Figs. 1,
`
`2A, 2B and 5, 1:26-28, 4:28-31, 4:32-33, 4:45-46, 4:46-59, 4:60-63, 5:4-7, 5:7-11,
`
`5:12-17, 5:63-67, 6:1-7, 6:13-16, 6:21-57, 7:34-38, 7:65-8:6, 8:58-62, 8:64-9:3,
`
`10:34-42, 11:51-63, 12:35-37, 12:43-44 and 14:6-11) that the claimed limitation 1a
`
`a present, because the sensor does not measure unrestricted movement of the body
`
`part. There is also no evidence on the record that claimed limitations 1ci is present
`
`since there is no microprocessor disclosed, nor is there any disclosure of a
`
`microprocessor receiving all measured data (or even the subset of measured data)
`
`and interpreting it based on user-defined operational parameters and the real-time
`
`clock. I understand that Dr. Singer did not understand what the clamed limitation
`
`“interpreting, using a microprocessor included in the portable, self-contained
`
`movement measuring device, said physical movement data based on user-defined
`
`operational parameters and a real-time clock” meant, which renders his opinions
`
`unreliable and unsupportable, in my opinion. See Transcript, pages 5-9. In my
`
`opinion, the claimed limitation 1ci is not disclosed in Stewart under all possible
`
`interpretations as to whether the measurement and/or interpretation limitations
`
`require the use of the user-defined operational parameters and the real-time clock.
`
`
`
`26
`
`IPR2018-00565
`LoganTree EX2001 Page 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
` Further, Stewart, d