Trials@uspto.gov
` 571-282-7822
`
`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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
` 571-282-7822
`
`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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Summary of the ‘576 Patent .............................................................................. 1
`
`B. Summary of the Cited Prior Art ......................................................................... 7
`
`1. Stewart (EX1004) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`2. Rush (EX1006) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`3. Richardson (EX1009)………………………………………...……………12
`
`C. Level of Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)…………………...14
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………..15
`
`A. Garmin’s Misinterpretation of the “Interpreting” Limitation ………………..15
`
`B. Garmin Erroneously Uses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims ..... 16
`
`III. GROUND 1: STEWART IN VIEW OF RUSH DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, AND 12 OBVIOUS ........................................................................... 16
`
`A. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed a
`
`movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of said
`
`movement...............................................................................................................17
`
`B. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed a
`
`ii
`
`
`
`microprocessor receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to movement data
`
`based on user-defined operational parameters………………………………….18
`
`C. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed “a
`
`memory for storing said movement data”………………………………………24
`
`D. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed a
`
`microprocessor 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………………………………………………………………….25
`
`E. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed 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…………………………………………….27
`
`IV. GROUND 3: RICHARDSON IN VIEW OF STEWART DOES NOT RENDER
`
`CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 56-58, 140, 144, AND 146 OBVIOUS……………29
`
`A. Ground 3, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`a microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said
`
`movement data based on user-defined operational parameters………………...30
`
`B. Ground 3, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`“a memory for storing said movement data”……………………………………36
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`C. Ground 3, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`“a memory for storing said movement data”…………………………………..36
`
`D. Ground 3, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`a microprocessor 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…………………..37
`
`V. Patent Owner Does Not Consent to the PTAB Adjudicating the Patentability or
`
`Validity of the Challenged Claims of the ‘576 Patent…………………………40
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001 (EX2001) - Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, PH.D
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit 2002 (EX2002) – Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Andrew C. Singer and
`
`Appendix 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.120, Patent Owner, LoganTree, LP
`
`(“LoganTree”) submits the following Response for Inter Partes Review instituted
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ’576 patent”). Because, as set forth below,
`
`Petitioner, Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”) has not
`
`met its burden of proof, and because LoganTree presents the Board with facts that
`
`demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims, the claims must be
`
`confirmed.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’576 Patent
`
`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
`
`operational parameters are uploaded to the microprocessor for use by the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`microprocessor. Id. at 5:59-6:9, 7:6-11.
`
`Using the microprocessor, the ‘576 patent interprets the physical movement
`
`data measured by the sensor using the user-programmed operational 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
`
`operational 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.
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘576 patent represents a high-level block diagram of
`
`components of the device.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13 are provided below (with annotations):
`
`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
`
`(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;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`(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,
`
`(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;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`(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 velocity of
`said movement.
`
`
`
`In providing his expert testimony for LoganTree, Dr. Madisetti created a
`
`version of Figure 4 of the ‘576 Patent (Figure A1) 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”). EX2001, ¶ 38 and Figure A1. This figure is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Figure A1
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure A1, the claimed limitations 1a and 13b require that
`
`the sensor 30 measure data associated with unrestricted movement of the body
`
`part. EX2001, ¶ 39. This data is represented by A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure
`
`A1.
`
`As is further illustrated, the claimed limitations 1ci and 13di require that a
`
`microprocessor 32 interpret this measured data. Id. at ¶ 40. This interpretation is
`
`performed by the microprocessor 32 based on user 34 defined operational
`
`parameters and the real-time clock (RTC) 46. Id. The RTC provides the time
`
`stamps as shown in Figure A1, corresponding to the data A, B, C and D,
`
`respectively. The time stamp TS_A corresponds to data A, for example.
`
`As shown in Figure A1, the claimed limitations 1f and 13g require that the
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`data (that is measured in claimed limitations 1a and 13b) is stored in memory 50. Id.
`
`at ¶ 41.
`
`From Figure A1, it is clear that 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 being based on at least one of the user-
`
`defined operational parameters and the real-time clock. Id. at ¶ 42. For the
`
`purposes of the example of Figure A1, this event is referred to as that
`
`corresponding to data A (interpreted as being associated with time stamp TS_A).
`
`Id. The data values B, C, and D and their associated time stamps do not generate
`
`(at the microprocessor) a detected event, in this example. Id. The event
`
`corresponding to A is denoted by a diamond shape in red along with its associated
`
`time stamp TS_A in memory 50. Id.
`
`As further shown in Figure A1, 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. Id. at ¶ 43.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Cited Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Stewart (EX1004)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972 to Stewart et al. (“Stewart”) is directed to a Head
`
`Acceleration-monitoring Technology (HAT) which is a portable system designed
`
`to measure and record acceleration data in real time in both translational and
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`angular directions of an individual’s head during normal activity. EX1004, 4:28-
`
`31. The HAT includes at least three orthogonally-placed accelerometers and
`
`means to record the output therefrom in real time. Id. at 4:46-47. The data from
`
`the accelerometers are recorded in real time during performance of the sport. Id. at
`
`4:60-61. The HAT provides real-time storage of data over a length of time such
`
`that cumulative exposure effects and thus limits can be established for further or
`
`future participation in the sport by the individual wearing the helmet equipped with
`
`the HAT. Id. at 4:65-67-5:1-2. The data also allows detection of the precise
`
`motions of the head which precede the occurrence of a severe head injury. Id. at
`
`5:2-4. For this purpose the HAT could be modified to record in real-time detailed
`
`data only when the accelerations exceed a defined threshold. Id. at 5:4-7.
`
`Storage of data from the outputs of the accelerometers is started and stopped
`
`by a processor via commands transmitted through a serial control interface. Id. at
`
`11:29-32. The operating software of the processor monitors the serial control
`
`interface for the presence of commands. Id. at 11:51-52. These commands set the
`
`general parameters of the data storage operation of the HAT. Id. at 11:53-54.
`
`Any suitable communications means, wired or wireless, may be
`
`implemented so as to provide commands to the processor from an external source.
`
`Id. at 11:54-58. The commands may alternatively or additionally be entered
`
`locally, such as through a keypad mounted on the helmet, an electronic key, or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`other means to establish certain general parameters regarding the sampling of the
`
`accelerometers, e.g., when to start, the sampling rate, and when to stop. Id. at
`
`11:58-63.
`
`Based on his review of the Stewart reference, Dr. Madisetti provided Figure
`
`A2 shown below. EX2001, Figure A2. The system of Stewart, based on the
`
`evidence in record, at best, discloses an architecture that is represented by Figure
`
`A2. Id. at ¶¶ 44 and 45.
`
`
`
`Figure A2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Rush (EX1006)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,546,609 to Rush, III (“Rush”) is directed to a helmet
`
`assembly for providing an indication when a predetermined axial compressive
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`force tending to cause serious injury to the wearer is applied thereto. EX1006,
`
`Abstract. The helmet assembly, in one embodiment, includes an inflatable ring
`
`module which has a channel-like shell. Id. at 5:51-57. Within the shell is packed
`
`in a folded configuration an inflatable bag. Id. at 5:63-65. To inflate the bag, there
`
`is provided a package containing a conventional battery, igniter and gas generator.
`
`Id. at 6:5-8.
`
`To operate the igniter and almost instantaneously inflate the bag, there is
`
`provided an impact-operated switch located in a webbing in a crown of the helmet
`
`and connected to the battery and igniter by circuit wires. Id. at 6:13-17. The
`
`switch preferably is in the form of an accelerometer that is adjustable to calibrate
`
`the amount of impact force on the crown area necessary to close the switch and
`
`thus trigger the firing mechanism, i.e., the igniter, to fully inflate the bag in about
`
`25 or so milliseconds. Id. at 6:17-22.
`
`In another embodiment, the switch or sensor is provided externally to the
`
`helmet. Id. at 9:14-16. The sensor in this embodiment is substantially the same as
`
`the above-described switch, and is preferably in the form of an accelerometer that
`
`is adjustable to calibrate the amount of impact force on the crown area. Id. at 9:17-
`
`19.
`
`In yet another embodiment, the helmet has a sensor embedded in the same
`
`manner as the above-described sensor. Id. at 9:40-42. In this embodiment, a signal
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`device which may be audible but may also or in the alternative provide a visual
`
`signal is installed in the helmet. Id. at 9:42-45. A small battery is provided to
`
`power the signal device. Id. at 9:45-46. In use, the sensor, when activated by an
`
`axial load caused, for example, by a spearing movement of the wearer, will
`
`function to close a circuit between the battery and the signal device to 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 action. Id. at 9:48-54. The sensor is preferably adjustable so that the
`
`magnitude of the axial impact experienced may be varied to accommodate players
`
`of different ages and sizes and to minimize the accidental actuation of the signal.
`
`Id. at 9:54-58.
`
`Rush further describes a recording means which is cooperable with a
`
`receiving means disposed remotely from the helmet and is preferably a held
`
`device, which can be carried by a remote observer, to record instances in which the
`
`potentially injurious activity has taken place. Id. at 9:67-10:5, 10:20-23. The
`
`recording means may record the time and date of each instance in which the
`
`potentially injurious activity occurs. Id. at 10:26-28.
`
`Based on his review of the additional alleged prior art reference, Rush, Dr.
`
`Madisetti provided Figure A3 shown below. EX2001, Figure A3. Based on the
`
`evidence in the record, the disclosure of Rush, (even when viewed in the light most
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`favorable to Garmin), at best is represented by Figure A3. Id. at ¶¶ 47 and 48.
`
`
`
`Figure A3
`
`
`3.
`
`Richardson (EX1009)
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et al. (“Richardson”) is generally
`
`directed to a personal fitness monitoring device and a method for accessing the
`
`fitness of an individual as the individual exercises that includes using a pedometer
`
`to determine and output data representing the locomotion of the individual.
`
`EX1009, Abstract. In particular, Richardson describes storing magnitudes of
`
`acceleration as a time series wherein each instantaneous moment’s acceleration is
`
`associated with a time provided by a real-time clock. Id. at 6:28-32. Having calculated
`
`a step’s gait, duration, and speed, these items, along with the times of the step’s starting
`
`12
`
`
`
`footfall, and the heart rate at the last heart beat detected before the end of the step, are
`
`placed in a step queue as the step statistics for the step. Id. at 29:48-53.
`
`The locomotor steps are analyzed and energy expenditure is tracked using
`
`personal data including user’s body weight, body height, leg length, age in years,
`
`and sex. Id. at 19:28-42. The user may request that reporting preferences or alarm
`
`parameters be changed, or that the system let him/her change personal data, such as
`
`weight or age. Id. at 17:48-51. Alarm conditions are monitored and any triggering
`
`conditions are reported whenever the user has already requested that a particular
`
`alarm be set. Id. at 30:12-15. A cruise control alarm trigger is reported whenever
`
`the user's locomotor speed goes consistently into or consistently out of a chosen
`
`speed band. Id. at 30:12-23.
`
`Based on his review of the alleged prior art reference, Richardson, Dr.
`
`Madisetti provided Figure A4 shown below. EX2001, Figure A4. Based on the
`
`evidence in the record, the disclosure of Richardson, (even when viewed in the
`
`light most favorable to Garmin), at best is represented by Figure A4. Id. at ¶¶ 49
`
`and 50.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Figure A4
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`LoganTree submits that a POSITA, as of the filing date of November 21,
`
`1997 of the ‘576 Patent, would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer engineering or equivalent, and two years of experience in
`
`embedded signal processing and/or systems, or equivalent. EX2001, ¶54.
`
`Additional industry experience or technical training may offset less formal
`
`education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser
`
`levels of industry experience.
`
`Dr. Madisetti possessed and exceeded such experience and knowledge
`
`before and at the date of the claimed invention and is qualified to opine on the ’576
`
`Patent and the alleged prior art references. Id.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ‘576 patent expired on November 21, 2017, and its claims therefore
`
`should be construed as they would be in a district court pursuant to Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42,
`
`46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claim terms should be 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. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.
`
`A. Garmin’s misinterpretation of “interpreting” limitation
`
`
`
`Garmin’s arguments and reliance on Stewart in the Petition illustrate that
`
`Garmin has misinterpreted the claim limitation 1ci. As discussed above, the claimed
`
`limitation 1a requires that the sensor measure data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement of the body part. See supra Figure A1. The claimed limitation 1ci requires
`
`that a microprocessor interpret this measured data. See supra Figure A1. This
`
`interpretation is performed by the microprocessor based on user defined operational
`
`parameters and the real-time clock (RTC).
`
`Garmin asserts that Stewart’s “processor interprets the received acceleration
`
`data to determine if the accelerations exceed defined/predetermined thresholds.”
`
`Pet. 22. This assertion makes it apparent that Garmin has erroneously interpreted
`
`the claim limitation 1ci as a collecting limitation performed by the sensor because
`
`the portion of Stewart being relied upon is directed to controlling the sensor when
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`to collect data. See EX1004, 14:6-11; EX2001, ¶ 57.
`
`B. Garmin Erroneously Uses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of
`
`Claims
`
`In its assertion of Ground 3, Garmin appears to rely on the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims. In particular, Garmin asserts that “to the
`
`extent it is determined that the timestamp limitation is broad enough to cover
`
`storing time information about an activity during which a first user-defined event
`
`occurred and is not limited to storing information reflecting the time at which the
`
`first user-defined event occurred during the activity, then Richardson clearly
`
`discloses this interpretation.” Pet. 39. In making such an assertion, Garmin
`
`appears to be using the incorrect broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`III. GROUND 1: STEWART IN VIEW OF RUSH DOES NOT RENDER
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, AND 12 OBVIOUS
`
`The proposed combination of references fails to render obvious, at the least,
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12. Regarding the independent claim (claim 1), the
`
`cited art, and specifically Stewart, does not teach the claimed “a movement sensor
`
`capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction
`
`and generating signals indicative of said movement”, does not teach the claimed “a
`
`microprocessor receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to movement data
`
`based on user-defined operational parameters,” and does not teach the claimed
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“memory for storing said movement data.” The combination also does not render
`
`obvious the claimed “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 does not render obvious the claimed “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.”
`
`A. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the
`Claimed a movement sensor capable of measuring data
`associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “a movement sensor capable of measuring data
`
`associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals
`
`indicative of said movement.” Garmin fails to cite art that teaches measuring data
`
`associated with unrestrained movement in any direction, as claimed. Garmin cites
`
`to Stewart for teaching this claimed feature. Pet. 15-17.
`
`LoganTree submits that a POSITA would understand that Stewart does not
`
`teach or suggest measuring data associated with physical movement because the
`
`sensor in Stewart does not measure unrestrained movement of the body part.
`
`EX2001, ¶¶ 45 and 58. In particular, Stewart merely provides for a helmet that
`
`includes three sets of three orthogonally-placed accelerometers that can be used to
`
`measure uniquely the translational, angular and normal components of acceleration
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the head. EX1004, 4:46-54. Garmin is not believed to have provided evidence
`
`in its petition or in Dr. Singer’s declaration of Stewart measuring unrestrained
`
`movement. Per Dr. Madisetti, a POSITA would understand that such disclosure of
`
`Stewart does not provide for measuring data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction. EX2001, ¶¶ 45 and 58.
`
`Based on at least the foregoing, LoganTree submits that Stewart does not
`
`teach or suggest a movement sensor measuring data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction, as provided for in the Challenged Claims.
`
`B. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the
`Claimed a microprocessor receiving, interpreting, storing and
`responding to movement data based on user-defined operational
`parameters
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a microprocessor capable of receiving,
`
`interpreting, storing and responding to movement data based on user-defined
`
`operational parameters. Garmin fails to cite art that teaches a microprocessor
`
`receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to movement data based on user-
`
`defined operational parameters. Garmin cites to Stewart for teaching this claimed
`
`feature. Pet. 21-24.
`
`The ‘576 Patent describes that the microprocessor is connected to a real-time
`
`clock to provide date and time information to the microprocessor. EX1001, 5:35-
`
`37. In the ‘576 patent, user-programmable configuration information can be
`
`entered by a user, and the user-programmed operational parameters are uploaded to
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the microprocessor for use by the microprocessor. Id. at 5:59-6:9, 7:6-11. Using
`
`the microprocessor, the ‘576 patent interprets the physical movement data
`
`measured by the sensor using the user-programmed operational parameters and the
`
`real-time clock. Id. at 5:40-47.
`
`In its Petition, Garmin argues that Stewart discloses using a microprocessor,
`
`as recited in claim 1, because “Stewart’s device includes a processor that
`
`‘comprises any conventional processor device, including a microcontroller or a
`
`microprocessor, and controls the operation of the HAT system.’” Pet. 19-20;
`
`EX1004, 8:58-62. However, while Stewart may disclose a processor, a POSITA
`
`would not understand that the processor in Stewart is interpreting measured data as
`
`required by the Challenged Claims. EX2001, ¶¶ 45 and 60.
`
`Rather, in Stewart, storage of data from the outputs of the accelerometers is
`
`started and stopped by a processor via commands transmitted through a serial
`
`control interface. EX1004 11:29-32. The processor controls the storage of data
`
`from an A/D Converter to a data storage. Id. at 8:58-59. The commands set the
`
`general parameters of the data storage operation of the HAT. Id. at 11:53-54. The
`
`commands may be entered locally to establish certain general parameters regarding
`
`the sampling of the accelerometers, e.g., when to start, the sampling rate, and when
`
`to stop. Id. at 11:58-63.
`
`It would be apparent to a POSITA that the commands in Stewart are for
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`controlling measurement of data by the accelerometers. EX2001, Figure A2 and
`
`¶¶ 45 and 62. The POSITA would recognize that the processor in Stewart is not
`
`interpreting the measured data based on the commands because the processor is
`
`merely controlling the storage of the measured data. Id. (The processor controls
`
`the storage of data from an A/D Converter to a data storage. EX1004, 8:58-59).
`
`Based on the foregoing, a POSITA would understand that Stewart’s commands are
`
`for controlling measurement of data by an accelerometer, and are not for
`
`interpreting data by the processor. Id. at Figure A2 and ¶¶ 45 and 63.
`
`Furthermore, in Stewart, the data is being measured at the sensor and stored
`
`based on the commands. EX1004, 8:58-59. A POSITA would understand that,
`
`while Stewart does not expressly disclose a real-time clock, any inherent real-time
`
`clock (assuming, arguendo, a real-time clock would be inherent, which LoganTree
`
`does not concede is correct) would be directly coupled to the sensor. EX2001,
`
`Figure A2 and ¶¶ 45 and 64. A POSITA would therefore find that Stewart does
`
`not teach or suggest a microprocessor interpreting physical movement data based
`
`on user-defined operational parameters and a real-time clock, as recited by the
`
`Challenged Claims. EX2001, ¶ 64.
`
`Based on at least the foregoing, LoganTree submits that Stewart does not
`
`teach or suggest a microprocessor interpreting physical movement data based on
`
`user-defined operational parameters and a real-time clock, as recited by the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`Garmin alleges that the commands disclosed in Stewart correspond with user-
`
`defined operational parameters as recited in the Challenged Claims. Pet. 21. In doing
`
`so, Garmin alleges that “Stewart discloses that user-defined commands control the data
`
`collection operations performed by the processor, and one disclosed data collection
`
`operation is recording data only when received acceleration data exceeds a defined
`
`threshold.” Id. at 22. However, Garmin concedes that “Stewart does not expressly
`
`disclose that the defined/predetermined thresholds are defined by user commands.” Id.
`
`Garmin instead cites to Rush, and alleges that “[t]he threshold value for detecting a
`
`spearing movement is ‘preferably adjustable ‘so that the magnitude of the axial impact
`
`experienced may be varied to accommodate players of different ages and sizes and to
`
`minimize the accidental actuation of the signal.’ Id. at 9:54-58; see also, id. at 3:13-18.”
`
`Id. LoganTree disagrees with this allegation and Garmin’s reliance on Rush, as
`
`explained in detail below.
`
`Rush discusses a helmet assembly for providing an indication when a
`
`predetermined axial compressive force tending to cause serious injury to the
`
`wearer is applied thereto. EX1006, Abstract. The helmet has an embedded sensor.
`
`Id. at 9:40-42. The sensor is preferably in the form of an accelerometer that is
`
`adjustable to calibrate the amount of impact force on a crown area. Id. at 9:17-19.
`
`A signal device which may be audible but may also or in the alternative provide a
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`visual signal is installed in the helmet. Id. at 9:42-45. A small battery is provided
`
`to power the signal device. Id. at 9:45-46. In use, the sensor, when activated by an
`
`axial load caused, for example, by a spearing movement of the wearer, will
`
`function to close a circuit between the battery and the signal device to 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 action. Id. at 9:48-54. The sensor is preferably adjustable so that the
`
`magnitude of the axial impact experienced may be varied to accommodate players
`
`of different ages and sizes and to minimize the accidental actuation of the signal.
`
`Id. at 9:54-58; see also EX2001, Figure A3.
`
`However, Rush does not provide any disclosure explicitly or implicitly
`
`regarding a processor or use thereof. See EX1006; see also EX2001, Figure A2
`
`and ¶¶ 48 and 67. Rush also does not provide any express disclosure of using a
`
`real-time clock. See EX1006; see also EX2001, ¶¶ 48 and 67. A POSITA would
`
`understand that the sensor in Rush is adjustable because the accelerometer can be
`
`calibrated to accommodate players of different ages and sizes a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
