Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 20
`Entered: October 28, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`1 At the time the Petition was filed, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. was the patent
`owner.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 20
`Entered: October 28, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`1 At the time the Petition was filed, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. was the patent
`owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’353 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 1. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) waived its right to file a preliminary response. Paper 7, 2.
`On November 7, 2018, we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged
`claims on the sole ground raised in the Petition. Paper 8 (“Institution
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”), 25–26.
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 11, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 12, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-
`Reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 13, “PO Sur-Reply). An oral hearing was
`held on August 20, 2019. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into
`the record. Paper 19 (“Tr.”).
`
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner] response will be deemed
`waived.” See Paper 9, 5; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The patent owner response . . .
`should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and
`state the basis for that belief.”).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–12 and 15–18 of the ’353
`patent are unpatentable. It, however, has failed to meet its burden of proof
`regarding the unpatentability of claims 13, 14, 19, and 20.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The Petition identifies Apple Inc. as the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`Pet. 7. Patent Owner states that its real parties-in-interest are Uniloc 2017
`LLC, Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Licensing USA LLC. Paper 6, 1–2.
`
`C. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’353 patent is not subject to any
`
`district court litigation or any other Board proceeding. Pet. 7; PO
`Resp. 3.
`
`D. The Challenged Patent
`The ’353 patent discloses a personal security system and method for
`
`detecting and signaling the existence of a critical event. Ex. 1001, 1:15–17.
`The ’353 patent recognizes that when a critical event occurs, there may
`frequently be a delay in summoning assistance or dispatching emergency
`personnel or other equipment to the area of the emergency. Id. at 1:19–31.
`The ’353 patent further recognizes that reducing response times to critical
`events would improve security, provide a valuable public service, and
`increase individual and public safety. Id. at 1:38–41.
`
`Accordingly, the ’353 patent discloses a personal safety alert system
`that broadcasts the occurrence of a critical event or other emergency
`situation so that public safety personnel or other assistance may be notified
`quickly. Id. at 1:45–48. Purported advantages of the system include
`minimizing response time to an emergency, automatically determining if an
`event should be categorized as requiring an emergency response and a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`broadcast alert, and providing an advance warning of impending potentially
`negative events. Id. at 2:6–17. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a network of data processing systems in which illustrative
`embodiments may be implemented. Id. at 3:53–55. Data processing system
`100 contains network 102, servers 104, 106, storage unit 108, clients 110,
`112, 114, and recording subsystem 116. Id. at 3:55–4:27.
`
`The data processing system may be used as a digital life recorder for
`capturing still images, video, audio, biometric information, and other types
`of data associated with the daily activities of a person via recording
`subsystem 116. Id. at 4:10–15. The recorded data is input into an analysis
`subsystem that compares the data to other information stored in a glossary,
`which is similar to a database and contains data specific to the output of a
`certain type of sensor or class of sensors—referred to as “signature data.”
`Id. at 6:50–54, 7:3–8. The glossary may contain, for example, data related
`to sound, data related to faces, biometric signature data, and G-force
`signature data. Id. at 6:54–66. If the input data matches information in the
`glossary, the signature matches may be categorized as an event that the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`analysis subsystem reports to a reporting subsystem. Id. at 7:17–19, 28–32.
`A configuration database includes settings that establish sensitivity and
`context that affect the accuracy of the comparison process, and may include
`a threshold setting that functions to filter out certain events that should not
`be reported. Id. at 7:19–28, 8:53–60.
`
`A reporting subsystem receives events reported by the analysis
`subsystem, and, if not filtered based on configuration settings, may
`broadcast an alert based on the event received. Id. at 7:34–38. The
`broadcast alert may be formatted as a text message, an automated telephonic
`message, an audible alarm, or may include any other type of notification
`signal. Id. at 7:51–55. The reporting subsystem may be configured to
`interface to a broadcasting subsystem, a public safety subsystem, or some
`other subsystem to broadcast an alert. Id. at 7:67–8:3. Upon receiving an
`alert, the broadcasting subsystem may broadcast the alert to a user-defined
`list of people, alarm companies, or any other user-defined entity specified in
`the configurations database. Id. at 8:4–8. The alert may also be a personal
`alert to the user of the system. Id. at 8:16–23. The public safety subsystem
`may interface with a plurality of reporting subsystems to send alerts to, for
`example, a hazardous material agency, missing persons bureau, traffic
`control, emergency, police, investigators, homicide detectives, and a Special
`Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) agency. Id. at 9:53–10:8.
`
`E. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’353 patent. Pet. 1. Claims
`
`1, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`A computer-implemented method of reporting a critical
`1.
`event, the method comprising:
`
`receiving input data, the input data comprising a digitized
`stream of signature data;
`
`repeatedly analyzing the input data to determine an event
`context;
`
`assessing a criticality of the determined event context;
`and
`responsive to the assessment of criticality, determining a
`
`reporting response.
`Ex. 1001, 11:47–55.
`
`
`
`F. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Date
`U.S. Patent No. 6,028,514 (“Lemelson”) Feb. 22, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 6,847,892 B2 (“Zhou”)
`Jan. 25, 2005
`
`Exhibit
`1003
`1004
`
`G. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial based on all challenged claims and the sole asserted
`
`ground of unpatentability:
`Claims Challenged
`1–20
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)2
`
`References
`Lemelson, Zhou
`
`Inst. Dec. 25–26; Pet. 8. Petitioner submits a declaration of Dr. Kenneth
`Fyfe (Ex. 1005, “Fyfe Declaration”) in support of its contentions.
`
`
`2 The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’353 patent was
`filed before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to
`the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims challenged
`in the Petition are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware,
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA” or “POSITA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with at
`least two years of experience in event monitoring device design or in
`biometric tracking.” Pet. 12–13; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 31. “Patent Owner
`does not offer a competing definition for purposes of this proceeding.” PO
`Resp. 4.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`We find Petitioner’s description to be consistent with the problems
`
`and solutions disclosed in the ’353 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it
`as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re GPAC Inc., 57
`F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, such as this
`
`one, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms
`are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). The presumption may be overcome by providing a definition of the
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the
`absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the
`specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`
`
`3 This Petition was filed before the effective date of the amendment to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 that changed the claim construction standard applied in
`inter partes reviews. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018). Thus, we use the broadest
`reasonable interpretation claim construction standard for this proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms that are in controversy need be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
`see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter
`partes review).
`
`Petitioner contends that the terms of the ’353 patent claims should be
`interpreted to have their plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, and proposes express constructions for
`“signature data,” “glossary,” “configuration data,” and “configuration
`setting.” Pet. 9–12. Petitioner contends that “its proposed constructions are
`consistent with both the broadest reasonable interpretation (‘BRI’) and
`Phillips standards.” Id. at 9.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions or
`offer constructions of its own. See PO Resp. 5.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we
`determine that no construction of any term is necessary.
`
`D. Overview of the Prior Art
`
`1. Lemelson
`Lemelson discloses emergency warning systems and methods that
`
`have the capability to automatically warn individuals of a variety of types of
`emergencies in their immediate vicinity. Ex. 1003, 1:5–8. Figure 1
`illustrates the system and is reproduced below:
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a preferred embodiment of a personal emergency and
`safety warning system. Id. at 9:63–64. The system includes central alarm
`and warning monitor/response command control center 10,
`telecommunications and paging ground stations 11, warning units 12 (which
`may be stationary or mobile), telecommunications and paging satellites 14,
`and global positioning system (“GPS”) satellites 16. Id. at 9:65–10:21.
`
`In operation, the warning unit system calculates its current location
`based on GPS data and monitors for receipt of warning messages from the
`control center. Id. at 13:5–15. If a warning message is received, the system
`determines if a warning should be generated and sent to the user based on
`either the proximity of the calculated system location to the dangerous
`situation or the determined likelihood that the user will travel to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`dangerous situation based on the user’s prior frequented locations. Id. at
`13:15–43. If the determination is made that a warning is to be sent, an alarm
`is sent to the user and the system recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 13:20–25, Fig. 4A.
`
`If no warning message is received from the control center, the system
`monitors for a medical alert generated by the person using the warning unit
`or the warning unit itself. Id. at 13:47–57. If the system detects a medical
`alert, the system notifies the user that a request for help is being sent, and, if
`not disabled by the user, the system recalculates its current location and an
`alarm message containing the determined location and the nature of the
`detected signal is sent to the command control center. Id. at 13:57–14:26,
`15:43–50. The system will continue to update its current location and send
`the alarm message until it receives confirmation that the message was
`received by the command control center. Id. at 15:50–60. Once message
`receipt is confirmed, the system broadcasts an audible message notifying the
`user that help is on the way. Id. at 15:61–16:4. The system then recalculates
`its current location and again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id.
`at Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If no medical alert is detected, the system monitors for human speech.
`Id. at 14:27–31. If speech is detected, the detected words are compared to a
`database of speech data for specific words indicating that an alarm or
`distressful situation is occurring that requires attention or immediate
`response. Id. at 14:31–42. If such speech is detected, an alarm message is
`sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm message. Id. at
`14:42–44. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`If no human speech or no alarming speech is detected, the system
`
`monitors for gunshot sounds. Id. at 14:45–47. If a gunshot is detected, an
`alarm message is sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm
`message. Id. at 14:47–51. If no gunshot is detected, the received sound is
`monitored for other alarming noise, and, if such noise is detected, an alarm
`message is sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm message.
`Id. at 14:51–58. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If no gunshot or alarming noise is detected, the system uses the
`calculated system location to determine if the user has traveled too far from
`a source of emergency services. Id. at 14:58–15:2. If the system determines
`the user is dangerously far from a source of emergency services, an alarm is
`sent to the user and the system then recalculates its current location and
`again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 15:2–9, Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If the system determines the user is not dangerously far from a source
`of emergency services, the system monitors for unusual or dangerous motion
`or location. Id. at 15:9–13. Unusual motion is determined based on outputs
`from a motion detector and successive calculated system locations. Id. at
`15:14–23. If the system detects unusual motion or location, the system
`prompts the user to answer if he/she is in danger. Id. at 15:23–29. If the
`user responds that there is no danger, the current location is categorized as
`safe and the system then recalculates its current location and again monitors
`for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 15:29–33, Figs. 4A, 4B. If the
`motion or location is not acceptable, an alarm message is sent in the same
`manner as with the medical alert alarm message. Id. at 15:33–40; see also
`id. at 18:11–13. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B. If no unusual
`or dangerous motion or location is detected, the system then recalculates its
`current location and again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at
`15:40–42.
`
`2. Zhou
`Zhou discloses systems and methods for monitoring and tracking
`
`individuals and objects. Ex. 1004, 1:23–26. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`shows a schematic overview of Zhou’s system. Id. at 1:63–64.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 provides an overview of the system components and the
`components’ relation to each other. Id. at 2:36–38. The system collects
`position and sensor data via one or more remote localization and sensing
`devices 100, stores the device data at Application Service Provider (“ASP”)
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`200, and, via the ASP, makes such device position and sensor data available
`to one or more end users 25. Id. at 2:38–44. Each device is coupled to or
`associated with the individual or object being monitored and tracked, and
`receives position data from a localization system (such as a GPS system) and
`sensor data from one or more types of known sensors. Id. at 2:62–67. The
`sensors may include, for example, sensors for monitoring physiological
`parameters (such as heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate), sensors
`for monitoring ambient parameters (such as temperature, motion, and
`speed), and inertial device-based fall detectors. Id. at 3:6–21, 8:42–44.
`
`The devices communicate with the ASP via a wireless communication
`system and a wired communication network, such as the Internet. Id. at
`3:25–48. The ASP stores the position and sensor data, and acts as an
`intermediary between the devices and the end users. Id. at 3:49–51. The
`ASP includes servers and databases, and provides the end users with the
`ability to access the device data, specify alert threshold values for
`comparison to measured sensor values, and receive notifications from the
`ASP via an alert device (such as a cellular telephone). Id. at 3:57–4:8. The
`devices and/or ASP monitor the sensor output and generate alert messages to
`the end users if the sensor data exceeds an alarm threshold. Id. at 3:22–24.
`
`End users interact with the ASP via a user device (such as a computer
`connected to the Internet) or a conventional telephone communication
`network. Id. at 4:9–45.
`
`E. The Challenge
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over
`
`Lemelson and Zhou. Pet. 15–61. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`upon the Fyfe Declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1005). We have reviewed the
`Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner Reply, Patent Owner Sur-Reply,
`and evidence of record and determine that, for the reasons explained below,
`Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–12
`and 15–18 would have been obvious in view of Lemelson and Zhou and that
`Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinnings why it would
`have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lemelson and Zhou.
`However, we find that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing
`regarding claims 13, 14, 19, and 20.
`
`1. Claims 1–11
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson to teach most of the limitations of
`
`independent claim 1, including repeatedly analyzing input data. Pet. 16–35.
`Petitioner relies on Zhou as an additional teaching of repeatedly analyzing
`input data. Id. at 27–29.
`
`i. A computer-implemented method of reporting a critical
`event
`Petitioner notes that Lemelson’s warning unit 12 includes
`
`microprocessor 42, and argues that Lemelson’s method, therefore, is
`computer-implemented. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:39–46, 6:7–13,
`11:30–49, Figs. 2, 6). Patent Owner does not challenge this aspect of the
`Petition. See PO Resp. 5 (“To simplify the issues before the Board, Patent
`Owner focuses deficiencies in the Petition with respect to the limitation,
`‘assessing a criticality of the determined event context,’ as recited in
`claim 1.”).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`We find that the cited portions of Lemelson support Petitioner’s
`
`contentions. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 11:30–33 (disclosing that the warning unit
`includes a microprocessor and memory). We additionally note that
`Lemelson discloses that its command control center 10 also comprises
`computer system 100 that includes, inter alia, database computer 102,
`database storage 104, processor 106, and memory 108, and, thus, the
`command control center is computer-implemented. See Ex. 1003, 12:9–47,
`Fig. 3.
`
`ii. receiving input data, the input data comprising a
`digitized stream of signature data
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson’s microphone 60 and medical sensor 51
`
`as providing input data, in the form of streams of signature data, that is
`received by microprocessor 42 of warning unit 12. Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex.
`1003, 4:29–41, 7:42–57, 11:24–49, 14:29–44, Figs. 2, 4; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34–35,
`39). Petitioner notes that Lemelson discloses that its medical monitoring
`system monitors current medical conditions of the person wearing the
`warning unit, and argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood the warning unit system receives a continuous stream of
`signature data from the medical monitoring system. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex.
`1003, 4:29–32, Fig. 4A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner similarly argues that
`Lemelson’s audio monitoring system provides a continuous stream of data
`that is received by the warning unit. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4A;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner further notes that Lemelson discloses the
`command control center continually searches for alarm messages from the
`warning units, and argues that this indicates that the warning unit
`continuously monitors the user’s medical conditions and that such indicated
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`continuous monitoring teaches a stream of input data. Id. at 21–22 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 16:10–19, 17:18–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner argues that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the stream of
`input data to be digitized because it is received by microprocessor 42 via
`signal routing and control circuitry 30. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003, 11:1–8,
`38–49; Ex. 1005 ¶ 39). Patent Owner does not challenge this aspect of the
`Petition. See PO Resp. 5.
`
`Lemelson discloses that its warning units monitor for such indications
`as medical alerts, speech-imparted alerts, and gunshot sounds, and, if such
`an indication is perceived, the warning units send an appropriate alarm
`message to the control center. Ex. 1003, 13:5–17:22, Figs. 4A, 4B. The
`’353 patent explains that signature data is “data specific to the output of a
`certain type of sensor or class of sensors.” Ex. 1001, 6:53–54. Thus, we
`find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`iii. repeatedly analyzing the input data to determine an
`event context
`Petitioner argues that Lemelson teaches analyzing a user’s biometrics
`
`or medical history data to determine an abnormal medical condition. Pet.
`22–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–41, 7:48–54; Ex. 1005 ¶ 41). Petitioner
`similarly argues that Lemelson teaches analyzing audio data to determine an
`emergency event context. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003, 14:29–44; Ex. 1005
`¶ 42). Petitioner argues that Lemelson’s Figure 4A teaches that the analysis
`of the medical and audio data is performed repeatedly. Id. at 25–27 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 13:50–14:7, 15:29–42, Fig. 4A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner
`also argues that Lemelson’s analysis is performed repeatedly due to the
`aforementioned reference to monitoring the user’s current medical
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`condition. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–32; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Patent
`Owner does not challenge this aspect of the Petition. See PO Resp. 5.
`
`Lemelson discloses its warning units monitor for such indications as
`medical alerts, speech-imparted alerts, gunshot sounds, and loud noises, and,
`if such an indication is perceived, the warning units send an appropriate
`alarm message to the control center. Ex. 1003, 13:5–17:22, Figs. 4A, 4B.
`After transmitting the alarm message, the warning unit repeats the cycle of
`monitoring for alert indications. See, e.g., id. at 13:20–25, Fig. 4A.
`Similarly, if the warning unit determines that no message is to be sent, the
`warning unit repeats the cycle of monitoring for alert indications. Id. at
`15:40–42, Figs. 4A, 4B. Thus, we find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s
`contentions.
`
`Petitioner alternatively relies on Zhou to teach repeatedly analyzing
`data. Pet. 27–29. Petitioner notes that Zhou discloses a system and method
`for tracking the status of individuals through a wireless device that may
`monitor periodically such individuals’ biological parameters and send an
`emergency signal based on such monitoring. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1004,
`1:23–26, 3:6–12, 4:9–17, 8:4–12, 45:20–37). Petitioner argues that such
`periodic monitoring is a repeated analysis of the input data. Id. at 27–28
`(citing Ex. 1003, 8:4–23; Ex. 1005 ¶ 44). Petitioner argues that it would
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine
`Zhou’s periodic monitoring with Lemelson’s monitoring for abnormal
`medical or audio-indicated emergency conditions to “conserve[] the limited
`power stored in Lemelson’s battery 32.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003, 11:8–
`11; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23–29, 44–45). Patent Owner does not challenge this aspect
`of the Petition. See PO Resp. 5.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`Zhou discloses that “the sensing of parameters by the at least one
`
`sensor 240 may be a periodic (e.g., time based).” Ex. 1004, 8:7–9.
`Processing unit 260 of device 100 receives the signals from the sensor. Id.
`at 8:5–7. In the heart monitoring embodiment, “[t]he Device will transmit
`GPS signal location to the ASP when vital signs indicate the need for
`emergency care.” Id. at 45:23–25. Thus, we find that Zhou supports
`Petitioner’s contentions. Petitioner further sets forth articulated reasoning
`with rational underpinning why it would have been obvious to modify
`Lemelson based on the teachings of Zhou. Pet. 28–29.
`
`iv. assessing a criticality of the determined event context
`Petitioner notes that Lemelson discloses comparing the user’s current
`
`medical condition to a database of abnormal medical conditions and
`determining a variance of predefined degree between the user’s current and
`normal medical conditions. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–41).
`Petitioner notes that Lemelson discloses that, if a variance of predefined
`degree exists, the warning unit generates signals defining the variance and
`transmits such signals to the command control center. Id. Petitioner argues
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`generation of such signals to be a teaching of assessing the criticality of the
`event context of the user’s medical condition. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003,
`7:42–54,4 13:50–58; Ex. 1005 ¶ 45); Tr. 10:3–16 (confirming that Petitioner
`relies on the generation of signals defining the variance to correspond to the
`recited “assessing a criticality of the determined event context”). Petitioner
`
`
`4 Petitioner’s citation to column 7, lines 42–48 of Exhibit 1003 appears to be
`a typographical error, as the quoted language appears at lines 42–54.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`also argues that Lemelson discloses that its command control center
`“determines the severity of the emergency and dispatches the proper
`emergency assistance,” which, according to Petitioner, also corresponds to
`the recited “assessing a criticality of the determined event context.” Pet. 35
`(emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:43–49).
`
`Petitioner similarly argues that Lemelson discloses assessing the
`criticality of an audio-indicated emergency condition. Id. at 31. Petitioner
`notes that Lemelson discloses that its warning unit contains a fuzzy logic
`controller that uses fuzzy logic inference rules to compute a degree of
`danger index for the person carrying the portable warning unit. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003, 5:26–28). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood “that Lemelson, therefore, teaches assessing
`the criticality of the above-discussed ‘event context’ of an audio-indicated
`emergency condition.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 45).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the recited steps of “repeatedly analyzing
`the input data to determine an event context” and “assessing a criticality of
`the determined event context” must necessarily be separate and distinct
`process steps. PO Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner argues that the Petition falls
`short because it relies on “the same alleged ‘monitoring’ [to] satisfy both
`‘repeatedly analyzing the input data to determine an event context’ and
`‘assessing a criticality of the determined event context,’ as recited in claim
`1.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner argues that the Petition is deficient because
`Lemelson discloses that the command center, rather than the warning units,
`determines the severity of the emergency. Id. at 7–8.
`
`Petitioner replies that “Lemelson teaches distinct steps of
`(1) determining abnormal medical conditions, (2) assessing the level of
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`abnormality, and (3) reporting that level of abnormality to the central control
`center.” Pet. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:34–41). Petitioner also argues
`that the severity assessment performed by Lemelson’s command control
`center determines a reporting response and also satisfies the requirements of
`claim 1. Id. at 5–6.
`
`Patent Owner replies that Petitioner “points to nothing in Lemelson
`expressly disclosing that determining an abnormal medical condition is an
`inquiry that is separate from, and antecedent to, detecting a variance of a
`predefined degree.” PO Sur-Reply 4. Patent Owner also 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
