`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`Declaration of Joseph A. Paradiso, PhD
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`Apple Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 2
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 9
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 10
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘508 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Patent ........................................................................ 11
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“dominant axis” ................................................................................... 14
`
`“cadence window” ............................................................................... 15
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`State of the Art at the Time of the ‘508 Patent ................................... 16
`
`Summary of Pasolini ........................................................................... 18
`
`Summary of Fabio ............................................................................... 20
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 1 is obvious over Pasolini. ................................ 24
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 3-4 are obvious over Pasolini in view of Fabio.
` ............................................................................................................. 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine Pasolini and Fabio ................................... 33
`
`Detailed Analysis ...................................................................... 36
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`F.
`
`Challenge #3: Claim 5 is obvious over Pasolini in view of Fabio,
`further in view of Richardson. ............................................................. 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Richardson ........................................................... 45
`
`Reasons to combine Pasolini, Fabio, and Richardson .............. 49
`
`Detailed Analysis ...................................................................... 52
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508 (“the ‘508 Patent”) to
`
`Kahn et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$500/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claim 5
`
`of the ‘508 Patent is unpatentable, either because it is anticipated or would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my opinion that all of the
`
`limitations of claim 5 would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The ‘508 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`The prosecution history of the ‘508 Patent, Ex. 1002;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”),
`
`Ex. 1005; and
`
`d)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”),
`
`Ex.1006;
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`e)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083to Richardson et al. (“Richardson”),
`
`Ex.1007; and
`
`f)
`
`Excerpts from Robert L. Harris, INFORMATION GRAPHICS: A
`
`COMPREHENSIVE ILLUSTRATED REFERENCE (1996) (“Harris”),
`
`Ex.1011.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a)
`
`The documents listed above, and
`
`b) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the
`
`field of wireless communications, as described below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Ex.1004. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`7.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to various
`
`fields of physical, electrical, and computer science with more than two decades
`
`focused on embedding sensing, including wearable and wireless sensors. I have 20
`
`years of experience in wearable devices and computing, during which I invented
`
`and fielded many types of wearable activity tracking devices that utilized a variety
`
`of power management and wakeup protocols.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`8.
`
`I am the Alexander W. Dreyfoos (1954) Professor in Media Arts and
`
`Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I direct the
`
`Responsive Environments Group, which explores how sensor networks augment
`
`and mediate human experience, interaction and perception. I also have served as
`
`co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, a group of MIT Media Lab
`
`researchers and industrial partners focused on the future of embedded computation
`
`and sensing, and am now serving as our Associate Department Head.
`
`9.
`
`I received my B.S. in electrical engineering and physics summa cum
`
`laude from Tufts University in 1977 and my Ph.D. in physics from MIT in 1981.
`
`From 1981 to 1984, I did post-doctoral research at the Swiss Federal Institute of
`
`Technology (ETH) in Zurich, working on sensor technology for high-energy
`
`particle physics. From 1984-1994, I was a physicist at the Draper Laboratory in
`
`Cambridge, Massachusetts, where, as a member of the NASA Systems and
`
`Advanced Sensors and Signal Processing Directorates, my research included
`
`spacecraft control systems and sensor technology for both sonar systems and high-
`
`energy physics. I also worked at Draper Lab as an undergraduate (1974-1978) on
`
`software for advanced strategic inertial measurement units and guidance systems.
`
`From 1992-1994, I directed the development of precision alignment sensors for the
`
`GEM muon detector at the Superconducting Supercollider, and worked on design
`
`of particle detectors at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`10.
`
`I joined the MIT Media Lab in 1994. The MIT Media Lab was
`
`founded in 1985 to actively promote a unique, anti-disciplinary culture that focuses
`
`on research projects joining different technological and academic fields. As
`
`described further below, researchers at the MIT Media Lab have pioneered areas
`
`such as wearable computing, tangible interfaces, and affective computing.
`
`Examples of products or platforms spun off Media Lab research include electronic
`
`ink readers such as the Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook, the popular
`
`video game Guitar Hero, the MPEG-4 structured audio format, the first bionic
`
`lower-leg system for amputees, wireless mesh networks developed by Nortel, and
`
`the Mercury RFID Reader, commercialized by spin-off ThingMagic. Today, the
`
`Lab is supported by more than 70 sponsors/members, comprising some of the
`
`world’s leading corporations and representing the fields of electronics,
`
`entertainment, fashion, health care, greeting cards, and telecommunications, among
`
`others. Faculty members, research staff, and students at the Lab work in more than
`
`25 research groups on more than 350 projects that range from digital approaches
`
`for treating neurological disorders, to a stackable, electric car for sustainable cities,
`
`to advancing imaging technologies that can see around corners.
`
`11. Upon joining the Media Lab, I focused on developing new sensing
`
`modalities for human-computer interaction, then by 1997 evolved my research into
`
`wearable wireless sensing and distributed sensor networks. This work anticipated
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`and influenced transformative products and industries that have blossomed in
`
`recent years. For example, the sensor-laden wireless shoe I developed for
`
`interactive dance in 1997 is recognized as a watershed in the field of wearable
`
`wireless sensing and was an inspiration for the Nike+, one of the very first activity
`
`trackers and the first commercial product to integrate dynamic music with
`
`monitored exercise. My team went on to pioneer clinical gait analysis with
`
`wearable wireless sensors in collaboration with the Massachusetts General
`
`Hospital (MGH) in 2002, and then broke new ground in sports medicine with
`
`another MGH collaboration that developed an ultra-wide-range wireless inertial
`
`measurement unit system for evaluating professional baseball pitchers in 2007. My
`
`team and I have also been leaders on wearable sensing for Human-Computer
`
`Interfaces, over the past decade fielding, for example, wristbands to measure finger
`
`position, wristbands to enable pointing interaction and control of heating and
`
`lighting, and even a wireless touchpad mounted on a fingernail.
`
`12. Leading to over 300 publications, 17 issued patents, and a string of
`
`awards in the Pervasive Computing, Human Computer Interaction, and sensor
`
`network communities, my research has become the basis for widely established
`
`curricula. Many of these publications are directed to wearables. I have also advised
`
`over 55 graduate (MS and PhD) theses for students who have done their work in
`
`my research group, and served as a reader for roughly 100 MS and PhD students in
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`other groups and at other universities. Some of my own students have gone on to
`
`prominence in their own careers that have involved wearables—for example, Dr.
`
`Nan-Wei Gong (PhD 2013) was the R&D lead of Project Jacquard (integrating
`
`electronics and textiles) at Google ATAP before becoming founder and CEO of
`
`her own companies with a wearable focus ‘Circular2’ and ‘Figure8', and Dr. Stacy
`
`Morris Bamberg (PhD 2004) became a tenured professor at the University of Utah
`
`doing wearable gait analysis, then started a company in this space (Veristride). I
`
`have given over 300 invited talks, panel appearances, and seminars worldwide,
`
`recently keynoting on topics relating to ubiquitous sensing and the Internet of
`
`Things (IoT) for prestigious venues ranging from the Sensors Expo (the main
`
`industrial sensors conference) to the World Economic Forum. I am frequently
`
`asked to address industrial groups on wearables and IoT, and often engage with the
`
`Media Lab’s extensive list of industrial partners in strategizing these areas.
`
`13.
`
`I belong to and participate in various professional organizations. I am
`
`a senior member of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers),
`
`and also belong to the ACM (Association for Computer Machinery). I also belong
`
`to the APS American Physical Society (the major professional society in physics),
`
`and am a senior member in the AIAA (the American Institute of Aeronautics and
`
`Astronautics). Within the IEEE, I belong to the Signal Processing Society, the
`
`Controls Society, and the Computer Society. As detailed in my CV, I have served
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`on many Technical Program Committees (TPCs, which solicit, review, and select
`
`papers for academic conferences) and journal editorial boards, plus have organized
`
`academic conferences in areas such as wireless sensor networks, wearable
`
`computing and wearable sensing, human-computer interfaces, ubiquitous
`
`computing, etc.
`
`14. One of the themes of my research has been on low-power embedded
`
`systems and energy harvesting. I have written several well-regarded papers on
`
`these topics that well predate the ‘508 Patent—for example, the review article that
`
`I wrote for IEEE Pervasive Computing in 2005, ‘Energy Scavenging for Mobile
`
`and Wireless Electronics’ has become their most popular article and is widely
`
`cited. My work on smart wakeup systems (e.g., as described in my papers such as
`
`‘A Framework for the Automated Generation of Power-Efficient Classifiers for
`
`Embedded Sensor Nodes’ and ‘CargoNet: A Low-Cost MicroPower Sensor Node
`
`Exploiting Quasi-Passive Wakeup for Adaptive Asynchronous Monitoring of
`
`Exceptional Events,’ both presented at SenSys 2007), are also of relevance here.
`
`III.
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`15.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`16.
`
`I am familiar with accelerometers (including those found in portable
`
`devices such as mobile phones). I am also aware of the state of the art at the time
`
`the application resulting in the ‘508 Patent was filed. I have been informed by
`
`Apple’s counsel that the earliest alleged priority date for the ‘508 Patent is
`
`December 22, 2006. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ‘508 Patent, I
`
`believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would include
`
`someone who had, at the priority date of the ‘508 Patent, (i) a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent training, as well as (ii) approximately two years of experience
`
`working in hardware and/or software design and development related to MEMS
`
`(micro-electro-mechanical) devices and body motion sensing systems. Lack of
`
`work experience could have been remedied by additional education, and vice
`
`versa. Such academic and industry experience would be necessary to appreciate
`
`what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and what a POSITA would
`
`have thought and understood at the time. Based on this criteria, as of the
`
`relevant time frame for the ‘508 Patent, I possessed at least such experience and
`
`knowledge of a POSITA, as well as trained many of them by then, hence am
`
`qualified to opine on the ‘508 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`17. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of December
`
`22, 2006. Unless otherwise stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis
`
`below, it is consistent with the level of a POSITA prior to the priority date of the
`
`‘508 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ‘508 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ‘508 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`asked to apply December 22, 2006, the earliest alleged priority date, as the priority
`
`date.
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ‘508 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed by counsel 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`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; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘508 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Patent
`
`24. The ‘508 patent is directed to “a method of monitoring human
`
`activity, and more particularly, to counting periodic human motions such as steps.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:5-7. As admitted by the Applicant, “inertial sensors (e.g.,
`
`accelerometers)” are commonly used in commercial electronic devices such as
`
`“cellular phones, portable music players, pedometers, game controllers, and
`
`portable computers.” Ex. 1001, 1:13-18. These conventional “[s]tep counting
`
`devices are used to monitor an individual’s daily activity by keeping track of the
`
`number of steps that he or she takes.” Ex. 1001, 1:19-21. These devices, however,
`
`“are often confused by motion noise experienced by the device throughout a user's
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`daily routine. This noise causes false steps to be measured and actual steps to be
`
`missed in conventional step counting devices.” Ex. 1001, 1:27-31.
`
`25. The claims of the ‘508 patent are directed to two separate concepts
`
`that allegedly improve conventional step counting devices. The first concept
`
`(associated with independent claims 1 and 11) relates to determining and assigning
`
`a “dominant axis,” and counting steps along that axis. See Ex. 1001, claim 1. In the
`
`‘508 patent, the dominant axis is the axis “with the largest absolute rolling average
`
`… most influenced by gravity, which may change over time (e.g. as the electronic
`
`device is rotated). Therefore, a new dominant axis may be assigned when the
`
`orientation of the electronic device … changes.” Ex. 1001, 6:16-21.
`
`26. The second concept (associated with independent claims 6 and 15)
`
`relates to counting steps in two different modes—a non-active mode and an active
`
`mode. In the non-active mode, steps are detected but not yet added to the total step
`
`count. Instead, such steps are buffered until the device switches to the active mode,
`
`which occurs when a certain number of steps have been detected and validated.
`
`Steps are determined to be valid if they fall within a particular time interval,
`
`referred to in the ‘508 patent as a “cadence window.” The cadence window is
`
`based on a user’s motion cycle or stepping period: “once a stepping period (or
`
`other motion cycle period) is determined, that period may be used to set the
`
`cadence window (the allowable time window for steps to occur).” Once in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`active mode, the detected steps are added to the total step count as they are
`
`detected.
`
`27. Before the ‘508 Patent was filed, a developer named Fabio Pasolini
`
`was actively working on pedometer devices that included the concepts described
`
`and claimed in the ‘508 patent. Mr. Pasolini filed two patent applications (issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Pasolini”))
`
`before the ‘508 patent was filed. The Pasolini reference describes a pedometer
`
`updates the vertical axis with each acquisition of an acceleration sample to take
`
`into account variations of the orientation of the pedometer device during use. Ex.
`
`1005, 8:20-24. The Fabio reference, on the other hand, describes applying a
`
`regularity condition to the detected step data so that a step is counted when it
`
`occurs within a “validation interval.” In my opinion, the disclosures provided in
`
`the Fabio and Pasolini references either anticipate or render obvious each and
`
`every element of the claims discussed below.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`28. The ‘508 patent issued on January 26, 2010 from U.S Patent
`
`Application No. 11/644,455 filed on December 22, 2006.
`
`29. The first Office Action issued on August 31, 2009, and included no
`
`prior art rejections. See Ex. 1002, p.70. The Action did, however, include multiple
`
`objections to the drawings and other informalities. On October 9, 2009, the
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`Applicant filed a response to replace drawings and amended the specification to
`
`address the other objections. See Ex. 1002, p.54. A Notice of Allowance then
`
`issued on November 30, 2009. See Ex. 1002, p.16. In the Allowance, the Examiner
`
`did not provide any specific reason but instead quoted the independent claims and
`
`merely stated that a few cited references did not teach the limitations of the claims.
`
`See Ex. 1002, p.22. As can be observed from the prosecution history, the Fabio and
`
`Pasolini references discussed below were not cited or applied by the Examiner.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ‘508
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. It is my further
`
`understanding that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor has
`
`set forth a special meaning for a term. In order to construe the following claim
`
`terms, I have reviewed the entirety of the ‘508 Patent, as well as its prosecution
`
`history.
`
`A.
`
`“dominant axis”
`
`31. This term appears in at least claims 1 and 11. In the specification of
`
`the ‘508 patent, the dominant axis is determined based on the accelerometer’s
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`alignment with gravity. For example, the specification states that “[i]n one
`
`embodiment, the dominant axis is assigned after identifying a gravitational
`
`influence. The gravitational influence may be identified by calculating total
`
`acceleration based upon the acceleration on each axis.” Ex. 1001, 14:34-38. The
`
`specification also states that “[i]n one embodiment, once the orientation is
`
`determined, a dominant axis is assigned based upon the orientation. Determining
`
`an orientation of the electronic device 100 may include identifying a gravitational
`
`influence.” Ex. 1001, 6:12-15. In other words, the dominant axis is “the axis most
`
`influenced by gravity, which may change over time (e.g., as the electronic device is
`
`rotated).” Ex. 1001, 6:16-18.
`
`32. Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“dominant axis” to include “the axis most influenced by gravity.”
`
`B.
`
`“cadence window”
`
`33. This term appears in at least claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19. The
`
`specification specifically defines this term as “a window of time since a last step
`
`was counted that is looked at to detect a new step.” Ex. 1001, 3:64-65.
`
`34. Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`“cadence window” to include “a window of time since a last step was counted that
`
`is looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`35.
`
`It is my opinion that claim 5 of the ‘508 patent is unpatentable, as
`
`discussed below, based on the following:
`
`Challenge
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge #1 1
`
`Challenge #2 3-4
`
`Challenge #3 5
`
`Ground
`
`Obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio
`Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”).
`
`Obvious over Pasolini in view of U.S. Patent No.
`7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”).
`
`Obvious over Pasolini in view of Fabio, further in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 to Richardson et
`al. (“Richardson”)
`
`
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art at the Time of the ‘508 Patent
`
`36. By the time the’508 Patent was filed on December 22, 2006, others
`
`were actively working on pedometer devices that monitored a user’s steps. My
`
`own team fielded several well-known systems to monitor human gait in the late
`
`90s and early 2000s using wireless MEMs accelerometers mounted on shoes.
`
`Another such developer was Fabio Pasolini, who designed motion detection
`
`systems using MEMS that could be implemented in phones or other portable
`
`electronic devices. See Ex. 1006, 2:33-36; Ex. 1005, 8:31-34. The pedometers
`
`devices that Mr. Pasolini designed use an inertial sensor, such an accelerometer, to
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`count steps of the user while the user is carrying the device. Ex. 1006, 1:10-11,
`
`2:49-64; Ex. 1005, 3:30-35.
`
`37. To detect and identify the user’s steps, Mr. Pasolini’s devices analyze
`
`positive and negative acceleration peaks provided by the accelerometer. Ex. 1006,
`
`4:12-21; Ex. 1005, 3:35-41. In this way, Mr. Pasolini’s devices provide features
`
`that help avoid “false positives” with respect to the step recognition. Ex. 1006,
`
`7:16-19; Ex. 1005, 1:61-2:3. These step-recognition features are described in two
`
`of Mr. Pasolini’s issued patents—U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Pasolini”)—that were both filed on October 2, 2006.
`
`38. Both of Mr. Pasolini’s patents describe a number of features in
`
`common with the pedometer devices. This includes, for example, an accelerometer
`
`with multiple axes of detection, so that step recognition is advantageously
`
`performed using the accelerations measured by the axis that is most aligned with
`
`gravity. Ex. 1006, 8:20-32; Ex. 1005, 8:15-24.
`
`39. The references differ in that the Pasolini reference provides additional
`
`detail regarding step detection using linear and multi-axes accelerometers,
`
`including describing that the pedometer updates the vertical axis with each
`
`acquisition of an acceleration sample to take into account variations of the
`
`orientation of the pedometer device during use. Ex. 1005, 8:20-24. The Fabio
`
`reference, on the other hand, describes applying a regularity condition to the
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`detected step data so that a step is counted when it occurs within a “validation
`
`interval,” which is identified as a window of time since a previous step was
`
`counted. Ex. 1006, 4:35-39, 7:16-19, FIG. 6.
`
`40. As described in more detail below, it is my opinion that the
`
`disclosures provided in the Fabio and Pasolini references either anticipate or render
`
`obvious each and every element of the claims discussed below.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Pasolini
`
`41. Pasolini is directed to “a pedometer device and to a step detection
`
`method using an algorithm for self-adaptive computation of acceleration
`
`thresholds.” Ex. 1005, 1:10-12. In one embodiment, Pasolini describes a pedometer
`
`device having an “accelerometer 2 [that] detects the component along the
`
`detection axis z of the vertical acceleration generated during the step, and
`
`produces a corresponding acceleration signal A.” Ex. 1005, 3:13-19. The
`
`processing unit in the pedometer device “acquires at pre-set intervals samples of
`
`the acceleration signal A generated by the accelerometer 2, and executes
`
`appropriate processing operations for counting the number of steps.” Ex. 1005,
`
`3:30-41. A diagram of Pasolini’s pedometer device is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 21 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`Inertial Sensor
`
`Pedometer Device
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`42. Pasolini also teaches an embodiment where the accelerometer 2 may
`
`be a tri-axial accelerometer rather than a linear accelerometer: “The accelerometer
`
`2 could be equipped with a number of axes of measurement, for example three
`
`mutually orthogonal axes of measurement.” Ex. 1005, 8:11-13. When using the
`
`three axes of measurement, the axis most aligned with gravity is used for step
`
`detection.
`
`43. Pasolini further teaches that the axis identified as the one most aligned
`
`with gravity changes as the device rotates. Specifically, Pasolini states that the
`
`“processing unit 3 envisages identifying the main vertical axis to be used for step
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Apple v. Uniloc USA
`
`Page 22 of 67
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,653,508
`
`detection as the axis of detection that has the highest mean acceleration value
`
`Accm (on account of gravity). For example, the main vertical axis can be
`
`identified at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample, block 30 of FIG. 4,
`
`so as to take into account variations in the orientation of the pedometer device
`
`1.” Ex. 1005, 8:18-24.
`
`44. Thus, the various embodiments described in Pasolini teach a
`
`pedometer using a tri-axial accelerometer to continuously determine which axis is
`
`the one most aligned with gravity, and uses that axis to count steps.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Fabio
`
`45. Fabio is directed to “controlling a pedometer based on the use of
`
`inertial sensors.” Ex. 1006, 1:10-11. Fabio notes th