Patent Owner’s Hearing Demonstratives
`IPR2018‐01281, ‐1282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`October 30, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`IPR2018‐01281, ‐1282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`October 30, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`Deficiencies in the Art
`
`Claims
`1, 21, 46
`
`1, 21, 46
`
`1, 21, 46
`
`3, 22, 27
`
`4, 23
`
`5, 24, 48
`
`Term
`“Identifying a first pattern …”
`“Fixing … by associating …” under any construction
`“Fixing … by associating …” under PO’s construction
`“initiat[ing] a process to attempt a recognition of a
`second pattern … based, at least in part, on said first
`identified pattern
`“said second pattern is [recognizing in] / [associated
`with] a reduced set of varying parameters [in response] /
`[due], at least in part, to said fixing”
`“captur[ing] a snapshot … in response to said detection
`of said at least one condition”
`
`Louch
`
`Wang
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`Not Disclosed
`
`2
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`’865 Patent (‐1281, Ex. 1001) at 1*
`
`*Except for slides specific to the Wang reference, all citations herein to ‐1281 have parallel content in the ‐1282 proceeding
`3
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`The ’865 Patent addresses a data and processing overload problem
`
`’865 Patent at 7:58‐63 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 8);
`see also Ex. 2004 at ¶ 20 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 4)
`
`’865 Patent at Figure 2
`(annotated) (cited in
`‐1281 POR at 5)
`
`4
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`First Stage
`
`Link Condition
`and First Pattern
`
`Set Scope
`of Analysis
`for Second
`Stage
`
`’865 Patent at Claim 1 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 14)
`
`5
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`Second Stage
`
`Further Details
`of Second Stage
`
`’865 Patent at Claims 3, 4, 5 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 14)
`
`6
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`• First Stage: Rather than continually tracking all varying
`parameters or attempting to recognize all possible patterns
`– First, monitor for conditions or “events of interest”
`
`’865 Patent at Claim 1 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 14)
`
`’865 Patent at 7:64‐8:1 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 8)
`
`7
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`• Second Stage: Upon detecting a condition, rather than attempting
`to recognize all patterns
`– Attempt to recognize a second pattern occurring “in
`connection” with the condition
`
`’865 Patent at 8:7‐15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 8‐9)
`
`8
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`• Upon detecting a condition, still do not search for all patterns
`– Instead, attempt to recognize a second pattern occurring “in
`connection” with the condition, which “fixing” enables
`
`“Fixing …” enables the
`mobile device to
`recognize patterns that
`occur in connection with
`the condition
`
`’865 Patent at 8:7‐15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 8‐9)
`
`9
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`• Upon detecting a condition, still do not search for all patterns
`– Instead, attempt to recognize a second pattern occurring “in
`connection” with the condition, which “fixing” enables
`
`’865 Patent at Claims 1, 3 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 14)
`
`’865 Patent at 8:7‐15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 8‐9)
`
`10
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`Ex. 2001 (’865 Patent Provisional
`incorporated by ref) at 15 (cited in ‐1281
`POR at 10)
`
`’865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Fixing”) (‐1281 POR at 11); see also Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 33‐34 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 11); ‐1281 POR at 9‐13
`11
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`Ex. 2001 (’865 Patent Provisional incorporated
`by ref) at 15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10)
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Recognize Second Pattern”) (‐1281 POR at 12); see also Ex. 2004 at ¶ 35 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 12)
`
`12
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction
`– “Setting the scope of analysis” is consistent with the intrinsic record and
`gives meaning to all claim limitations
`• Petitioner’s construction
`– Provides no meaning to “fixing” rendering it surplusage
`– Does not accomplish what the specification says “fixing” accomplishes
`
`Petitioner’s
`construction
`redline against
`plain language
`
`fixing a subset of varying parameters associated with said
`first pattern by associating at least one parameter of a said
`subset of varying parameters with said first pattern to represent
`said at least one detected condition
`‐1281 POR at 20
`
`‐1281 POR at 18‐21; see also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 5‐8
`13
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | “Associating …” is Not a Special Case of “Fixing …”
`
`• Dispute between parties was whether grammatical structure of
`the passage below meant “associating …” is either:
`(1) a sub‐step of “fixing …” or
`(2) a specific way to perform “fixing …”
`
`’865 Patent at 8:18‐21
`Now, both experts agree that “associating …” is a sub‐step of “fixing …”
`‐1281 POR at n.2, 20‐21; see also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 6
`14
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | “Associating …” is Not a Special Case of “Fixing …”
`
`• The Institution Decisions, on a preliminary record, found
`Petitioner’s construction still limited the claims to fixing (and thus
`did not remove fixing), in fact fixing by the action of associating
`
`Now, both experts agree that “associating …” does not limit the claims to “fixing …”
`
`‐1281 POR at n.2, 20‐21; ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 1, 5‐6; see also Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017–00222, slip op. at 15 (PTAB May 23,
`2018) (Paper 29) (rejecting, under the BRI standard, a construction that failed to give meaning to each word of the plain claim language).
`
`15
`
`‐1281 ID at 17
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | “Associating …” is Not a Special Case of “Fixing …”
`
`Fixing
`
`Associating
`
`Context Labeling
`
`Associating
`
`Different Applications
`
`Associating
`
`‐1281 POR at 21; see also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 6
`
`Q. Okay. And you agree ‐‐ and so the
`specification uses associating as a substep of
`the process of fixing, correct?
`A. Yes.
`Allen Depo. (Ex. 2003) at 51:20‐23 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 3, 21;
`Sur‐Reply at 1, 6); see also Villasenor Decs (Exs. 2004, 2005) at
`¶¶ 32 (“‘associating’ does not, on its own, accomplish
`‘fixing.’”), 43
`
`Q. Okay. That computer operation of
`associating can be used in many different
`applications?
`A. Yes. Yes.
`Q. So the computer operation of associating
`can be used to achieve many different goals?
`A. Yes.
`Allen Depo. (Ex. 2003) at 49:25‐50:9 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 21;
`Sur‐Reply at 1, 6); see also id. at 52:12‐18 (context labelling is
`not fixing) (cited in ‐1281 POR at 21)
`
`16
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s construction provides meaning to “fixing” as the
`term is used in the specification
`
`Plain Language
`
`fixing a subset of varying parameters associated with said first
`pattern by associating at least one parameter of said subset of
`varying parameters with said first pattern to represent said at least
`one detected condition
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`setting the scope of pattern recognition analysis to where a
`subset of varying parameters match parameter values associated
`with said first pattern by associating at least one parameter of said
`subset of varying parameters with said first pattern to represent
`said at least one detected condition.
`
`‐1281 POR at 18‐19; see also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 7‐8
`17
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Assigning Meaning to “Fixing”
`
`• Test competing constructions with specification description
`
`“setting the scope of analysis to where motion state is equal to driving”
`enables an application processor to observe what other variables have
`patterns if motion state corresponds to “driving”
`
`“associating the varying parameter motion state with the parameter value
`driving” does not enable …
`‐1281 POR at 10‐11; ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 7‐8;
`see also Villasenor Decs. (Exs. 2004, 2005) at ¶ 32
`
`’865 Patent at 13:23‐26, 13:36‐37 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10‐11)
`
`18
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Assigning Meaning to “Fixing”
`
`Dr. Allen agrees that Petitioner’s construction of “fixing” does not
`enable determining what is relevant to a second pattern
`
`Q. So instantiating parameters to represent a condition tells you
`nothing about what varying parameters you should look at
`going forward, correct?
`A. It tells you what parameters are relevant to this state.
`Q. But it doesn't tell you what parameters are relevant to another
`state, such as the one you’ve mapped to the second pattern,
`correct?
`A. It doesn't tell you what's relevant to those, right.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 85:11‐20 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 22)
`
`Q. And 408 is instantiate the pattern. Is that fair?
`A. Yes.
`
`…Q
`
`. What does instantiate mean?
`A. It means that you're going to – the parameters are
`assigned a value.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 56:21‐57:6 (cited in ‐1281
`POR at 23)
`
`FIG. 4
`
`’865 Patent at Fig. 4 (excerpt) (cited in Villasenor Decs.
`(Exs. 2004, 2005) at ¶¶ 21, 24); see also ‐1281 POR at 8‐9
`
`19
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Assigning Meaning to “Fixing”
`
`Dr. Allen’s remaining testimony regarding “fixing” is inconsistent and unhelpful
`Dr. Allen’s independent assessment
`Q. Okay. And how does storing relate to fixing?
`A. The fixing is, in this case here, is determining which parameters ‐‐ determining what the pattern is. Storing is saving that
`pattern away.
`Q. So it's not fixing?
`A. Recording the pattern on the device is not fixing.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 116:22‐117:4 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 23)
`
`Dr. Allen’s testimony when instructed on redirect
`
`Q. Okay. And let me take a step back. Do you have a recollection of what the ‐‐ you don't have to have just a recollection. You can look
`at your declaration ‐‐ of what the construction or understanding of the fixing limitation is that you’ve applied?
`…
`Q. ‐‐ turning to your discussion in page 58 on paragraph 128, is that storing action ‐‐ could that be an example of the fixing limitation?
`A: Yes. That could be an example of the fixing, because it’s associating ‐‐ well, whatever the words are ‐‐ the parameter with the ‐‐
`basically the signature is representing the condition.
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 150:7‐12; 151:2‐14 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 23‐24)
`
`20
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Qualcomm is Consistent with its Litigation Positions
`
`Qualcomm’s position on the flaws in Apple’s construction and the
`role of fixing have been consistent
`
`Ex. 1024 at 86 (cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 13)
`
`D.I. 129 in district court litigation at 10 (quoted in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 13)
`
`See also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 13‐14
`21
`
`
`
`Wang
`
`• Mapping of Wang fails for multiple reasons
`– Petitioner does not contest that EEMSS uses an XML file with
`state transitions to recognize patterns, which is fatal to
`Petitioner’s mapping of “first pattern” and “second pattern”
`– To recognize a second pattern through state transition, the
`EEMMS scope of analysis is where the first pattern does not
`match, contrary to the recited “fixing … by associating …”
`– The Petition asserts that EEMSS selects sensors for
`monitoring in response to detecting user state, not in
`response fixing as required by Claims 4 and 23
`
`‐1281 POR at 33‐40; Sur‐Reply at 14‐27
`22
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that Wang describes a research system
`known as “EEMSS” that detects states based on state transitions
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 2, 3 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 25); see also ‐1281 POR at 24‐40; Sur‐Reply at 2, 14, 17
`
`23
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`EEMSS uses “state transition criteria” from the XML file to identify
`new states, not patterns from Table 1
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 4 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 25)
`
`24
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`• Petitioner’s mapping fatally relies upon an incorrect assumption
`that EEMSS uses the state definitions in Table 1 in operation
`– Wang never states that EEMSS uses the state definitions of Table 1
`For example, Wang discloses that, from a first
`pattern corresponding to the user state “walking”
`(i.e., the pattern comprising parameter values
`“Keep on changing” and “Moving Slowly”), a
`second pattern corresponding to the user state
`“riding a vehicle” (i.e., the pattern comprising
`parameter values “Keep on changing” and
`“Moving Fast”) can be recognized “[i]f a
`significant amount of increase is found on both
`user speed and recent distance of travel.” APPLE-
`1005, p5c1, Table 1.
`‐1281 Pet at 18 (cited in ‐1281 POR at n.4)
`
`‐1281 Pet at 18 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 26)
`
`‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 25‐27
`25
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Table 1 to define a “first pattern” is fatal to
`the mapping of multiple elements of the independent claims
`
`’865 Patent at Claim 1 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 14)
`‐1281 POR at 30‐35; Sur‐Reply at 19‐20
`26
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`• Petitioner identifies no passages in Wang that describe EEMSS
`using “both” the XML file and the “patterns” of Table 1
`– Nothing in the passage below, or anywhere else in Wang, states that EEMSS
`uses the patterns of Table 1 to detect states
`– Wang does not disclose using “both,” and such a notion is nonsensical
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 5 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 28‐29)
`
`‐1281 POR at 27‐30; Sur‐Reply at 14‐19
`27
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`• Petitioner’s alterations of Wang to insert references to Table 1
`confirm the actual disclosure of Wang provides no support
`– Wang does not actually include the bracketed text inserted by Petitioner
`referencing Table 1
`
`‐1281 Pet. Reply at 23 (cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 18)
`
`‐1281 Pet. Reply at 23 (cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 18)
`
`‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`28
`
`
`
`Wang | Detection of Non‐Overlapping States
`
`• Wang requires setting the scope of analysis to where the varying
`parameters do not match their values in the purported first pattern
`
`PO’s “Fixing … by
`Associating …”
`Construction
`
`setting the scope of pattern recognition analysis to where a subset of varying
`parameters match parameter values associated with said first pattern by
`associating at least one parameter of said subset of varying parameters with said
`first pattern to represent said at least one detected condition.
`
`‐1281 POR at 18‐19, 37‐38; see also ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 7‐11
`
`‐1281 POR at 30‐32, 37‐38
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 4 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 25)
`
`29
`
`
`
`Wang | Detection of Non‐Overlapping States
`
`Table 1’s patterns cannot be recognized with the claimed “fixing”
`
`setting the scope of pattern
`recognition analysis to
`where a subset of varying
`parameters match parameter
`values associated with said
`first pattern …
`
`‐1281 POR at 18‐19
`
`Q.
`
`The bottom two states are walking and vehicle. Do
`you see that?
`Yes, I do.
`A.
`Q.
`Those two states cannot overlap in time, can they?
`A. They cannot.
`
`Allen Depo. (Ex. 2003) at 22:13‐18 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 30)
`30
`
`‐1281 Pet at 18 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 26)
`
`‐1281 POR at 30‐32, 37‐38
`
`
`
`Wang | Detection of Non‐Overlapping States
`
`• Petitioner’s new first pattern mapping is improper and fails
`– Mapping in Petition (two variable pattern):
`
`‐1281 Pet. at 25
`(cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 21)
`
`– Mapping in Reply (one variable pattern):
`
`‐1281 Reply at 28
`(cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 21)
`– Reply mapping breaks other parts of mapping: New first pattern does not
`“represent said condition,” does not match the “identifying” step
`‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 19‐23
`31
`
`
`
`Wang | Detection of Non‐Overlapping States
`
`• Petitioner’s second new first pattern mapping is improper and fails
`– Mapping in Petition (two variable pattern):
`
`‐1281 Pet. at 25
`(cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 21)
`
`– Mapping in Reply (to XML file not mapped in Petition):
`
`‐1281 Reply at 31
`(cited in ‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 22)
`
`– Petitioner breaks what Wang shows as single pattern into separate parts, no
`identification of “condition” represented by purported pattern
`
`‐1281 Sur‐Reply at 19‐23
`32
`
`
`
`Wang | No Selection of Sensors in Response Fixing (Claims 4 and 23)
`
`Claims 4 and 23 each recite a reduced set of varying parameters …. [in response]
`/ [due], at least in part, to said fixing of said subset of parameters.”
`
`’865 Patent at Claims 4, 23 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 39)
`
`‐1281 POR at 39‐40; Sur‐Reply at 24‐27
`33
`
`
`
`Wang | No Selection of Sensors in Response Fixing (Claims 4 and 23)
`
`The Petition asserts that Wang discloses selecting sensors to monitor
`“in response” to determining a user state, not “fixing”
`
`‐1281 Pet. at 36 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 39; Sur‐Reply at 26)
`
`‐1281 Pet. at 37 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 39 ; Sur‐Reply at 27)
`
`‐1281 POR at 39‐40; Sur‐Reply at 24‐27
`34
`
`
`
`Wang | No Selection of Sensors in Response Fixing (Claims 4 and 23)
`
`Dr. Allen admits that defining which sensors monitored has
`“nothing to do with fixing”
`
`Redo callout
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 3, 5 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 39)
`
`Q. So it also ‐‐ so fixing also has to require defining the
`state transition and what – and what you're going to
`monitor in order to see that state transition?
`
`A. That has nothing to do with fixing. That's a
`description of the system.
`
`Allen Depo. (Ex. 2003) at 91:11‐16
`(cited in ‐ 1281 POR at 3, 39; Sur‐Reply at 25)
`
`‐1281 POR at 39‐40; Sur‐Reply at 24‐27
`35
`
`
`
`Louch
`
`• Mapping of Louch fails for multiple reasons
`– Louch does not disclose any sort of setting the scope of analysis
`(i.e., “fixing”) or staged approach as required by Ind. Claims
`– Louch never discusses detecting more than one pattern in any
`embodiment, therefore it does not disclose attempting a
`recognition of a second pattern as required by Claims 3, 22, 27
`– Louch never discusses limiting sensors or data from sensors in
`any way, and thus does not disclose recognizing any variable in a
`reduced set of varying parameters as required by Claims 4, 23
`– The Petition asserts that Louch captures snapshots
`“continuously,” and thus not in response to said detection of
`said at least one condition as required by Claims 5, 23, 48
`‐1282 POR at 31‐39; Sur‐Reply at 16‐25
`36
`
`
`
`Louch | No Limited Scope of Analysis
`
`• Unlike the multi‐stage approach of the ’865 Patent, Louch discloses
`a single step without any setting of scope of analysis
`– Louch discloses nothing other than monitoring all sensors (i.e., all data
`derived from the sensors) at all times while attempting to detect all patterns
`
`’865 Patent at Fig. 4 (excerpt)
`(cited in Villasenor Dec.
`(Ex. 2005) at ¶¶ 21, 23, 24
`
`FIG. 4
`
`Louch (Ex. 1011) at Fig. 4
`(cited in ‐1282 POR at 26);
`see also ‐1282 POR at 25‐27
`
`37
`
`
`
`Louch | No “Fixing … By Associating” (Independent Claims)
`
`• Petitioner originally mapped “fixing … by associating …” to
`“learning” and/or “storing” a pattern
`
`‐1282 Pet. at 28‐29 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 31); see also ‐1282 POR at 31‐32
`
`• Petitioner pivots in reply to assert that Louch “sets the scope of
`analysis” through identifying a “duration” pattern
`
`‐1282 Reply at 18‐19 (cited in ‐
`1282 Sur‐Reply at 17, 19); see
`also ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 16‐19
`
`38
`
`
`
`Louch | No “Fixing … By Associating” (Independent Claims)
`
`Both Dr. Allen and the ’865 Patent agree that a duration pattern does
`not “match” until the duration element is met, meaning there is no
`separate “first pattern” on which to perform “fixing”
`
`’865 Patent at 10:17‐21 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 35; ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 17)
`
`Q. Why don't you say it because I'm doing a terrible
`job of terminology. Could you kind of say that back
`to me in how you would use the words, that basic
`notion?
`
`A. Uh‐huh. Yes. That would be the pattern ‐‐ that
`pattern with a duration constraint would have to
`hold for that amount of time before it matched.
`Allen Depo. (Ex. 2003) at 34:25‐35:7 (cited in ‐1282 POR at
`35; ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 17)
`‐1282 POR at 33‐36; Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`39
`
`
`
`Louch | No “Fixing … By Associating” (Independent Claims)
`Dr. Villasenor does not support Petitioner’s position
`Dr. Villasenor responding to Petitioner’s question on hypothetical functionality not in Louch
`
`A.
`
`Q. Yes. And to get from the situation in which you just have "motion sensing" equals "none" and "proximity" equals "close to an object,"
`to get from that scenario to the state in which you now have exceeded the duration threshold and determined that you want to trigger
`a control action, to make that leap, the only thing the device in Louch needs to analyze is the duration of the first state?
`I guess I disagree to the extent that your question has sort of relabeled as separate states what in Louch is a single state. But as a
`technical matter, it is the case that once you observe you're in a position and if there – if that state also includes the duration
`requirement, assuming that position remains the same, what you would then need to wait to establish is whether the duration of
`requirement is met or not.
`Villasenor Deposition (Ex. 1026) at 124:21‐125:18 (cited in Reply at 22); see also ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`
`Dr. Villasenor again stating that Louch does not include any such functionality
`
`Q. So then in that example, once the device enters the state in which "motion" equals "none" and "proximity" equals "close to an object,"
`then the only thing the system needs in order to determine whether to trigger the control action is to analyze the duration of that state?
`But, again, it's ‐‐ it depends what you ‐‐ you know, in Louch the state would not be ‐‐ if duration is a criterion, then the way Louch is
`presented then you wouldn't declare that you're in the, quote, state until you actually have also assessed the duration.
`
`A.
`
`Villasenor Deposition (Ex. 1026) at 123:16‐124:4 (cited in ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 18); see also ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`
`40
`
`
`
`Louch | No “Fixing … By Associating” (Independent Claims)
`• Louch is entirely silent on how a duration pattern is detected
`– Louch does not describe setting any scope of analysis
`
`Louch (Ex. 1011) at 5:7‐21 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 34); see also ‐1282 POR at 29‐30, 32‐36
`
`41
`
`
`
`Louch | No Second Pattern (Claims 3, 22, 27)
`
`Dr. Allen agrees that a pattern recorded in “learning mode”
`and later matched are “the same”
`
`Q. Okay. Let me walk through both of those logical options because that's what I was getting at myself. Option one is
`that the first movement pattern is recorded and then days or weeks later, that exact pattern is identified in the
`current data being analyzed, correct?
`A. Yes.
`Q. So in that case, the first movement pattern and the second movement pattern would be the same pattern?
`A. The pattern ‐‐ yes. They are ‐‐ it’s the ‐‐ yes, yes. Yes.
`Q. And in the other logical case, which is what you were getting at in paragraph 156, the first movement pattern is
`recorded and then days or weeks later, something that's pretty close is identified, correct?
`A. Yeah, but we're conflating what it means, a notion of a pattern, right. The pattern is an abstract data structure.
`You're going to see the same thing in the '865 patent and the other. It's essentially when you're pattern
`matching you've got the pattern and the pattern you eventually match is the same as the one that was before.
`So it's in that sense.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 123:17‐124:16 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 3, 28, 29, 33); see also ‐1282 POR at 33‐36
`
`42
`
`
`
`Louch | No Second Pattern (Claims 3, 22, 27)
`
`• Petitioner’s argument in reply that the BRI of “second pattern”
`includes “first pattern” is untimely attorney argument and wrong
`– The ’865 Patent uses “occurrence” to refer to multiple instances of the
`same pattern
`
`– Claim 3 refers to two different patterns
`
`’865 Patent at 15:18‐20
`(cited in Sur‐Reply at 15‐16)
`
`’865 Patent at 21:17‐20
`(cited in Sur‐Reply at 16)
`
`‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 15‐16
`43
`
`
`
`Louch | No Second Pattern (Claims 3, 22, 27)
`• Louch discloses a pattern including a duration or distance
`component as an alternate pattern, not a second pattern
`– Louch does not disclose or suggest or given any reason to use both
`
`Louch (Ex. 1011) at 5:7‐21 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 34); see also ‐1282 POR at 33‐36
`
`44
`
`
`
`Louch | No Reduced Set of Varying Parameters (Claims 4, 23)
`
`Louch does not disclose limiting the number of sensors (or varying
`parameters derived from those sensors) in any way or at any time
`
`Q. And states are defined using less than all of those sensors, correct?
`A. Yes.
`Q. But Louch never suggests you should monitor less than all of them, correct?
`A. I'd have to go through and make sure; but to my best recall now, they don't.
`Although, the ‐‐ if the sensors are not relevant to the pattern, what you're
`looking for then ‐‐
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 117:17‐25 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 4, 27, 32, 37, 39); see also ‐1282 POR at 27‐29, 36‐37
`Q. Okay. So on a happy note, you would agree with me that Louch does not discuss
`turning off various sensors at any time?
`A. Yes. I believe that's true, yes.
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 114:24‐115:2 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 4, 27, 32, 37 ); see also ‐1282 POR at 27‐29, 36‐37
`
`45
`
`
`
`Louch | No Reduced Set of Varying Parameters (Claims 4, 23)
`Dr. Villasenor does not support Petitioner’s position
`
`Dr. Villasenor responding to Petitioner’s question on hypothetical functionality not in Louch
`
`Q. Does it need to analyze the input from the ambient light sensor or the pressure sensor?
`A.
`I mean, it could, but it doesn’t necessarily have to, no.
`
`Villasenor Deposition (Ex. 1026) at 126:6‐10 (cited in ‐1282 Reply at 26); see also ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 21‐23
`
`Dr. Villasenor stating that Louch does not disclose such functionality
`
`A.
`
`Q. Okay. I turn you back to Louch, the column 2, 54 to 56. … When Louch says the state machine can track various combinations of
`inputs, do you understand that to mean it's not tracking all combinations of all inputs at all times?
`I don't think there's any disclosure in Louch that it's not tracking all ‐‐ that it's not monitoring all inputs at all times. I think what
`this sentence is referring to is that if you're looking for a particular state change or a particular state, you can preferentially be
`evaluating those variables. But I don't think there's any disclosure in Louch that you're not always looking at everything, it's just a
`question of what you're actually subjecting to computation.
`
`Villasenor Deposition (Ex. 1026) at 126:21‐127:20 (cited in ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 22); see also ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 21‐23
`
`46
`
`
`
`Louch | No Snapshots In Response to Detection of Condition (Claims 5, 23, 48)
`
`• Claims 5, 24, and 48 each recite “captur[ing] a snapshot … in
`response to said detection of said at least one condition.”
`– Louch never mentions taking a snapshot at any point and any automated
`snapshots taken as part of sensor capturing would be continuous, not in
`response to said detection of said at least one condition
`
`’865 Patent at Claim 5 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 38); see also ‐1282 POR at 4, 38‐39; ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 3, 23‐25
`
`47
`
`
`
`Louch | No Snapshots In Response to Detection of Condition (Claims 5, 23, 48)
`
`• The Petition does not identify any “capturing” of “snapshots” “in
`response to detecting a condition”
`– The Petition alleges only that snapshots “are continuously captured”
`
`5. The method of claim 3, wherein said
`process further comprises: capturing a
`snapshot of said monitored input signals
`in response to said detection of said at
`least one condition
`
`Q. No. Okay. So if you're analyzing data, you're definitely capturing snapshots?
`A.
`If a computer is analyzing data, at some stage, that data is recorded in its memory so that it can operate on it.
`There's no other thing a computer can do.
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 54:12‐18 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 38)
`
`‐1282 POR at 4, 38‐39; ‐1282 Sur‐Reply at 3, 23‐25
`48
`
`‐1282 Pet. at 45‐46 (cited in ‐1282 POR at 38, 39)
`
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`49
`
`
`
`Patterns
`
`• Example of patterns
`– “Motion State” = Driving
`– “Motion State” = Driving AND “Starting Location” = Work
`
`’865 Patent at 13:8‐13 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 6)
`
`‐1281 POR at 6‐7
`50
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`• “Fixing a subset of variables” enables subsequent pattern
`recognition efforts subsequent pattern recognition efforts not of
`all patterns, but when there is a pattern in the fixed variables
`
`Ex. 2001 (’865 Patent Provisional) at 15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10); see also 865 Patent at 1:7‐10
`(stating provisions is “expressly incorporated herein by reference) (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10)
`
`‐1281 POR at 9‐13
`51
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`• “Fixing a subset of variables” enables subsequent pattern
`recognition efforts subsequent pattern recognition efforts not of
`all patterns, but when there is a pattern in the fixed variables
`
`’865 Patent at 13:19‐22 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10)
`
`‐1281 POR at 9‐13
`52
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`• “Fixing a subset of variables” enables subsequent pattern
`recognition efforts subsequent pattern recognition efforts not of
`all patterns, but when there is a pattern in the fixed variables
`
`‐The Patent provides another example of “fixing one variable
`associated with or corresponding to ‘driving’”
`
`’865 Patent at 13:23‐26, 13:36‐37 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10‐11)
`
`‐1281 POR at 9‐13
`53
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`•
`
`“Fixing a subset of variables” enables subsequent
`pattern recognition efforts subsequent pattern
`recognition efforts not of all patterns, but when
`there is a pattern in the fixed variables
`
`Ex. 2001 (’865 Patent Provisional incorporated by ref) at 15;
`’865 Patent at 13:19‐26, 13:36‐37 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 10‐11)
`
`’865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Fixing”) (‐1281 POR at 11); see also Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 33‐34 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 11); ‐1281 POR at 9‐13
`54
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Fixing”) (‐1281 POR at 11);
`see also Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 33‐34 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 11)
`55
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Recognize Second Pattern”)
`(‐1281 POR at 12); see also Ex. 2004 at ¶ 35 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 12)
`
`56
`
`
`
`’865 Patent | Fixing
`
`’865 Patent at 8:45‐54 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 12)
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Variable Disregarded”) (‐1281 POR at 13); see also Ex. 2004 at ¶ 36 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 12‐13)
`57
`
`
`
`“Fixing … by Associating” | Assigning Meaning to “Fixing”
`Dr. Allen agrees that by the time “identifying” is completed, the
`relevant varying parameters have been identified and linked.
`
`Q. And 408 is instantiate the pattern. Is that fair?
`A. Yes.
`Q. So one is find and one is instantiate?
`A. Yes.
`Q. What does instantiate mean?
`A. It means that you're going to – the parameters are assigned a value.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 56:21‐57:6 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 17‐18, 23)
`
`Q. Okay. So when you're done with the identifying step, you've identified the
`relevant parameters ‐‐
`A. Right.
`Q. ‐‐ you're identified the relevant parameter values, correct?
`A. Yes.
`
`Allen Deposition (Ex. 2003) at 58:9‐15 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 18, 23)
`
`FIG. 4
`’865 Patent at Fig. 4 (excerpt) (cited in
`Villasenor Decs. (Exs. 2004, 2005) at ¶¶ 21,
`24); see also ‐1281 POR at 17‐18, 23
`
`58
`
`
`
`Wang | XML File—Not Table 1—Defines EEMMS State Detection
`
`•
`
`If Petitioner were correct that EEMSS uses Table 1, then EEMSS
`would detect the state “Vehicle” by detecting a pattern of
`Feature “Location” = “Keep on changing”
`+
`Feature “Motion” = “Moving Fast”
`– But that is not what Wang says:
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wang) at 5 (cited in ‐1281 POR at 27)
`
`‐1281 POR at 27, 30
`59
`
`
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
