UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN VILLASENOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2018-01282
`Qualcomm Ex. 2005
`Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN VILLASENOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2018-01282
`Qualcomm Ex. 2005
`Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`A. Qualifications
`1. My name is John Villasenor. I am a professor at UCLA. I have been retained
`
`by Qualcomm Incorporated to provide opinions in the inter partes review
`
`proceedings IPR2018-01281 (the ‘1281 proceeding) and IPR2018-01282 (the
`
`‘1282 proceeding) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865 (the ‘865 Patent).
`
`2. My work focuses on
`
`innovative, high-performance communications,
`
`networking, media processing, and computing technologies and their broader
`
`implications. Since well before the respective priority dates of the ‘865 Patent, I
`
`have performed research in areas including image processing, machine learning,
`
`and delivering content to mobile devices. For example, I have also done research
`
`in machine learning, with substantial experience developing algorithms that adapt
`
`in response to changing characteristics in the environment as reflected, for
`
`example, through data measured through sensors. In addition, I have performed
`
`research in relation to mobile devices since the 1990s. This research included
`
`multiple aspects of mobile devices, including wireless communications, sensing
`
`information (such as orientation) on mobile devices, and methods for delivering
`
`content to mobile devices, including considerations such as the selection of type of
`
`content for transmission to the mobile device.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Virginia
`
`in 1985, and M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1986 and 1989, respectively.
`
`4. While at Stanford, I concentrated my research on digital signal processing
`
`and communications.
`
`5.
`
`Between 1990 and 1992, I worked for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
`
`Pasadena, CA, where I helped to develop techniques for imaging and mapping the
`
`earth from space. Since 1992, I have been on the faculty of the Electrical
`
`Engineering Department of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
`
`Between 1992 and 1996, I was an Assistant Professor; between 1996 and 1998, an
`
`Associate Professor; and since 1998, I have been a full Professor.
`
`6.
`
`For several years starting in the late 1990s, I served as the Vice Chair of the
`
`Electrical Engineering Department at UCLA. I also hold an appointment in the
`
`Department of Public Policy within the UCLA School of Public Affairs. In
`
`addition, I teach in the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
`
`7.
`
`Since joining the UCLA faculty in 1992, my research has addressed
`
`software, algorithms, hardware, networking, protocols, and other aspects of
`
`systems and devices that acquire, store, process, transmit, and display information.
`
`8.
`
`I am an inventor on approximately 20 issued and pending U.S. patents in
`
`areas including signal processing, data compression, communications, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`cybersecurity. I have published over 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and
`
`academic conference proceedings.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to my work at UCLA, I am a nonresident senior fellow at the
`
`Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Through Brookings I have examined a
`
`wide range of topics at the technology/policy intersection including cybersecurity,
`
`wireless mobile devices and systems, intellectual property, financial inclusion for
`
`“unbanked” populations, digital media policy, “drones,” critical infrastructure
`
`security, driverless cars, and digital currencies and emerging payment methods. I
`
`have published articles and commentary related to technology policy in venues
`
`including Billboard, the Brookings Institution, the Chronicle of Higher Education,
`
`Fast Company, Forbes, the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Scientific
`
`American, Slate, and the Washington Post.
`
`10. My attached curriculum vita (Ex. 2006) details my over expertise and
`
`experience in the field of computer graphics and image processing.
`
`B. Materials reviewed
`11.
`I have reviewed each Petition submitted in each of the ‘1281 and ‘1282
`
`proceedings, as well the Patent Owner Preliminary Response submitted in each of
`
`the ‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘865 Patent that is included as Exhibit 1001 in each of
`
`the ‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/434,400,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`which incorporated by reference by the ‘865 Patent, that is included as Exhibit
`
`2001 in each of the ‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings, and the prosecution history for
`
`the ‘865 Patent, excerpts of which are included as Exhibit 1002 in each of the
`
`‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed each declaration of Dr. Allen, which is Ex. 1003 in the
`
`‘1281 proceeding and Ex. 1021 in the ‘1282 proceeding.
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed each Institution Decision entered by the Panel in each of the
`
`‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the transcript of Dr. Allen’s deposition conducted as part of
`
`the ‘1281 and ‘1282 proceedings.
`
`16. A complete listing of the documents I reviewed is as follows:
`
`Proceeding
`
`Pr/ Ex Title
`
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`1281 Proceeding
`
`1281 Proceeding
`1282 Proceeding
`1282 Proceeding
`1282 Proceeding
`1282 Proceeding
`1282 Proceeding
`
`2 Petition
`6 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`7 Institution Decision
`1001 U.S. Pat. No. 8,768,865
`1002 Excerpts of ‘865 Patent Prosecution History
`1003 Allen Declaration
`1005 Wang
`2001 U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/434,400
`(Incorporated by Reference by the ‘865 Patent)
`2003 Deposition of James Allen (April 25, 2019)
`2 Petition
`6 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`7 Institution Decision
`1011 Louch (U.S. 8,676,224)
`1021 Allen Declaration
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`C. Legal Principals
`17.
`I understand in this IPR proceeding claim terms, the BRI standard applies,
`
`which means claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`
`of the entire disclosure.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, elements of a
`
`claim must be disclosed within the reference either expressly or inherently. For a
`
`claim element to be inherent in a reference, I understand that the claim element
`
`must be necessarily present in the reference. I also understand that the reference
`
`must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or direct those
`
`skilled in the art to the invention without any need for picking, choosing, and
`
`combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of
`
`the cited reference.
`
`D. Overview of the ‘865 Patent
`19. The ‘865 Patent generally concerns methods and apparatuses relating to
`
`machine learning on a mobile device, such as a smartphone or tablet. The ‘865
`
`Patent addresses the problem of making sense of large amounts of multi-
`
`dimensional data, as may be generated and/or processed by a mobile device. Such
`
`multi-dimensional data may be used to identify user behavior or actions. As the
`
`number of sensors and/or other data sources in a mobile device increases, it
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`becomes more difficult to process and analyze sensor and device data in order to
`
`identify relevant patterns. When faced with a large multi-dimensional dataset,
`
`efficiency of the associated analysis becomes extremely important—particularly on
`
`a mobile device with limited resources. The ‘865 Patent describes this problem:
`
`A popular and rapidly growing market trend in sensor-enabled
`technology includes, for example, intelligent or smart mobile
`communication devices that may be capable of understanding what
`associated users are doing (e.g., user activities, intentions, goals, etc.)
`so as to assist, participate, or, at times, intervene in a more meaningful
`way. Integration of an ever-expanding variety or suite of embedded or
`associated sensors that continually capture, obtain, or process large
`volumes of incoming information streams may, however, present a
`number of challenges. These challenges may include, for example,
`multi-sensor parameter tracking, multi-modal information stream
`integration, increased signal pattern classification or recognition
`complexity, background processing bandwidth requirements, or the
`like, which may be at least partially attributed to a more dynamic
`environment created by user mobility. Accordingly, how to capture,
`integrate, or otherwise process multi-dimensional sensor information
`in an effective or efficient manner for a more satisfying user
`experience continues to be an area of development.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:42-60. The patent also notes:
`
`As alluded to previously, continually tracking or monitoring all or
`most varying parameters or variables that may be associated with a
`multi-dimensional stream of sensor
`information may be a
`computationally intensive, resource-consuming, at times intractable,
`or otherwise less than efficient or effective approach for pattern
`matching or recognition.
`Id. at 7:58-63.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`20. The ‘865 Patent teaches an efficient multi-stage approach processing and
`
`analyzing this multi-dimensional data, thereby saving device resources and
`
`improving the performance of the mobile device. See, e.g., id. at 8:50-54 (“This
`
`may make pattern matching more tractable or otherwise allow for a more effective
`
`or efficient pattern recognition since a pattern matching process is performed in a
`
`remaining or reduced set of variables.”). By using this multi-stage approach, the
`
`mobile device avoids the shortcomings of the prior art requiring “continually
`
`tracking or monitoring all or most varying parameters.” See, e.g., id. at 7:58-63.
`
`21.
`
` One exemplary embodiment is disclosed in Figure 4 of the ‘865 Patent:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`
`In the context of the ‘865 Patent claims, a mobile device monitors its various
`
`22.
`
`sensor and application data sources and detects a condition or an event of interest.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 7:40-45; 8:54-60; 9:7-11; 14:60-65. This can be considered a first
`
`stage.
`
`23. The mobile device also identifies a “first pattern” based on this detected
`
`condition. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 4, 14:66-15:5. The “first pattern may comprise a
`
`distinct signal-related pattern having one or more varying parameters or variables
`
`of interest that may be representative or otherwise correspond to” the “detected
`
`condition.” See id. at 15:1-5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`24. The mobile device then “fix[es] a subset of varying parameters associated
`
`with said first pattern.” See id. at Fig. 4. As will be discussed below, this “fixing”
`
`step sets the scope of analysis for subsequent pattern recognition. Specifically, the
`
`mobile device may then “initiat[e] a process to attempt recognition of a second
`
`pattern.” See id. This can be considered a second stage. By fixing varying
`
`parameters of the first pattern, during that second stage, the mobile device may
`
`attempt to recognize a second pattern that occurs when the fixed varying
`
`parameters match the first pattern. See id. at 13:23-37.
`
`25. Figure 5 of the ‘865 Patent illustrates an exemplary mobile device with a
`
`number of sensors that may be monitored for patterns indicative of user behavior
`
`or action:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`26. Like most modern mobile devices, the device depicted in Figure 5 has
`
`several sensors, including, in this example, one or more accelerometers 514, an
`
`ambient light sensor 516, a proximity sensor 518, and other sensors 520 “such as a
`
`gyroscope, magnetometer, microphone, camera, GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth™-enabled
`
`devices, etc. to facilitate or otherwise support one or more processes associated
`
`with operating environment 500.” See id. at 17:28-42. The ‘865 Patent explains
`
`that “parameters,” “varying parameters,” or “variables” are “derived” from these
`
`monitored sensors. See id. at 9:63-10:3. The patent uses these three terms
`
`interchangeably. Below, for shortness, I may use only one term, but use of any
`
`such one term should be considered a reference to all three terms. The ‘865 Patent
`
`also teaches that other “variables” may be derived from non-sensor sources, such
`
`as indications user behavior or action, including time of day, day of the week, a
`
`state or action of an application, and actions taken on the mobile device (e.g.
`
`silencing a ringer, muting a call, or sending a text message). See id. at 8:1-6,
`
`14:60-65. The variables have values that change over time. See, e.g., id. at Figure
`
`2.
`
`The ‘865 Patent describes examples of “variables” that are derived using different
`
`levels of analysis, and one variable may be used to derive another variable. For
`
`example, the patent describes “acceleration” as an example of a “variable.” Id. at
`
`4:8-13. The patent also describes “motion state” as another variable and explains
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`“acceleration” may be used to determine values of the variable “motion state” such
`
`as “driving,” explaining: “an acceleration vibration may, for example, indicate that
`
`a user is driving or walking.” Id. at 7:30-32.
`
`27. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “fixing”
`
`parameters, in the context of the ‘865 Patent, refers to setting the scope of analysis
`
`to enable pattern recognition of additional patterns when there is a pattern in the
`
`fixed parameters.
`
`28. The ‘865 Patent describes the function of “fixing” on several occasions, each
`
`consistent with the understanding described above. First, the ‘865 Patent explains:
`
`At least one subset of variables of interest may be fixed, as discussed
`above, and one or more patterns in a second subset of variables may
`be identified, for example, if there is a pattern in the fixed subset of
`variables.
`
`Id. at 13:19-22.
`
`29. Next, the ‘865 Patent explains:
`
`By way of example but not limitation, an application processor
`associated with a mobile device may observe what other variables
`have patterns if a motion state corresponds, for example, to "driving,"
`as one possible illustration.
`Id. at 13:23-26. The patent goes on to explain that what was described in the
`
`quotation above is “fixing one variable associated with or corresponding to
`
`‘driving.’” Id. at 13:36-37.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`30. The ‘865 Patent references U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/434,400 and
`
`states “the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.” Id. at
`
`1:7-10. I understand that this means that the contents of that provisional
`
`application are part of the ‘865 Patent disclosure. That provisional application
`
`states:
`
`■ Monitor variables individually for patterns
`■ Fix one subset of variables and identify patterns in a second subset
`of variables when there is a pattern in the fixed subset of variables
`
`■ E.g., observe what other variables have patterns when motion
`state corresponds to “driving”
`Ex. 2001 at 2001.015.
`
`31. The ‘865 Patent also uses the term “associating.” A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that in the computer science context, the word
`
`“associating” refers to a basic building-block step that may be used in any number
`
`of contexts to, along with other steps, achieve any number of goals. This is also
`
`how the term is used in the ‘865 Patent. For example, the ‘865 Patent describes
`
`“associating” as part of multiple different processes:
`
` “An example of context labeling may include associating a specific
`
`accelerometer pattern with the context ‘surfing,’ for example, by providing
`
`other context, such as a camera view, location corresponding to a beach,
`
`detecting ‘wetness’, or the like.” Ex. 1001 at 14:13-17 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
` “In some instances, a subset may be fixed, for example, by associating
`
`parameters or variables with a particular, distinct, or otherwise suitable
`
`pattern to represent a certain detected condition or event, as one possible
`
`example.” Id. at 15:9-12 (emphasis added)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “context labeling” and
`
`“fixing” are not the same processes.
`
`32. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ‘865 Patent
`
`describes “associating” as a substep of “fixing,” that “associating” does not, on its
`
`own, accomplish “fixing.” As discussed above, the patent explains that by “fixing”
`
`“motion state” to “driving,” “a mobile device may observe what other variables
`
`have patterns if a motion state corresponds, for example, to ‘driving,’ as one
`
`possible illustration.” Id. at 13:23-26, 13:36-37. But a mobile device would not
`
`able to “observe what other variables have patterns if a motion state corresponds,
`
`for example, to ‘driving,’” if all that had been done was “associating” “motion
`
`state” with “driving.” Rather, that association must be used to set the scope of
`
`analysis to enable pattern recognition of additional patterns when “motion state” =
`
`“driving.”
`
`33. The concept of fixing can be illustrated through annotation of Figure 2 of the
`
`‘865 Patent. In the first annotation below, the scope of analysis is shown as the
`
`area inside the red box.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Fixing”)
`34. The scope of analysis shown in the red box corresponds to where “Motion
`
`State” = “Driving.” As discussed above, the ‘865 Patent uses “fixing” to describe
`
`this step of setting the scope of analysis. The substep of “associating” “Motion
`
`State” with “Driving” is part of this process, but on its own does not accomplish
`
`fixing.
`
`35. The next annotation below shows a second pattern found within the red box
`
`as a result of pattern recognition efforts after the “fixing” process. Specifically,
`
`based on the “fixing … by associating …,” the system can then attempt to
`
`recognize a second pattern when motion state corresponds to “driving.” Ex. 2001
`
`at 2001.015. This example second pattern is “Motion State” = “Driving” +
`
`“Change in Location” from “SSID_3” to “SSID_1.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Recognize Second Pattern”)
`36. The patent also explains that by “fixing,” “a set of variables associated with
`
`a multi-dimensional sensor information stream may be advantageously reduced.” I
`
`note that “fixing” is not reducing variables, but a reduction in variable can result
`
`from “fixing.” For example, within the scope of analysis set in the fixing step, the
`
`variable “Brightness Level” remains unchanged. The system may be able to
`
`disregard that variable as a result. This is shown in the annotation below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 29
`
`
`
`‘865 Patent Figure 2 (Annotated to Show “Variable Disregarded”)
`
`E. Claim Construction
`i.
`“Pattern”
`37. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the BRI of “pattern,”
`
`as used in the ‘865 Patent, to be: “a collection of one or more pairs of varying
`
`parameters and corresponding parameter values, as well as the relationship
`
`between each pair (where the relationship may be implicit).” The claims refer to
`
`both a “first pattern” and a “second pattern.” I understand the Petitioner proposed
`
`a construction of “a collection of one or more parameter values.” Pet. at 11-13.
`
`This construction is incomplete because it does not explicitly state that the pattern
`
`includes not only parameter values, but the linked parameter.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 29
`
`
`
`38. One example pattern in the patent is: “location X AND motion state Y.” Id.
`
`at 13:8-13. Here, “location” and “motion state” are variables, with “X” and “Y”
`
`being the corresponding values. “AND” is a logical representation that indicates
`
`that the pattern requires both pairs. Figure 3 of the patent illustrates another
`
`example of a pattern:
`
`
`
`39.
`
`In this example, “context_type” refers to “variables” and “context_value”
`
`refers to the linked variable value. In this example, while not written down, it
`
`would be understood that logically each pair of variables and corresponding values
`
`are required to make up the pattern. That is, the pattern may be represented as:
`
`“SoundIntensity = Loud AND PeriodicMovement = Running.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 29
`
`
`
`40. The patent also discusses “identifying” patterns. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that identifying a pattern means identifying all of the
`
`elements I discussed above that make up the pattern.
`
`ii.
`“Fixing … by Associating …”
`41. Consistent with the descriptions of “fixing” and “associating” above, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “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” means “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.”
`
`This term is found in each of the challenged independent claims (Claims 1, 21, or
`
`46). As discussed above, the ‘865 Patent consistently describes the function of
`
`“fixing” parameters as setting the scope of analysis to enable pattern recognition of
`
`additional patterns when there is a pattern in the fixed parameters.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has asserted that “[t]his phrase is broad enough
`
`to encompass ‘associating at least one parameter of a subset of varying parameters
`
`with the first pattern to represent at least one detected condition.’” I do not agree
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim language in this
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 29
`
`
`
`way, which takes the original language and removes “fixing a subset of varying
`
`parameters associated with said first pattern,” for several reasons.
`
`43. First, as I have discussed above, “associating at least one parameter of a
`
`subset of varying parameters with the first pattern to represent at least one detected
`
`condition,” on its own, does not accomplish what the specification repeatedly
`
`describes “fixing” as accomplishing. Rather, “associating” is only a substep that
`
`on its own does not accomplish “fixing.” Therefore, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction is contrary to the description of “fixing” in the patent.
`
`44. Second, Petitioner’s construction—“associating at least one parameter of a
`
`subset of varying parameters with the first pattern” is indistinguishable from the
`
`separately-recited step of “identifying a first pattern based, at least in part, on said
`
`at least one detected condition.” As discussed above, “identifying a first pattern”
`
`includes identifying each of the variables included in the first pattern and linking
`
`those variables to corresponding values.
`
` But Petitioner’s construction—
`
`“associating at least one parameter of a subset of varying parameters with the first
`
`pattern”—also just covers that same “linking” activity and nothing more. That is,
`
`“associating at least one parameter of a subset of varying parameters with the first
`
`pattern” is already accomplished as part of identifying the first pattern because
`
`identifying the first pattern includes linking parameter values of the first pattern
`
`with the parameters of the first pattern. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 29
`
`
`
`not interpret the “fixing” step in a way that made it duplicative of the “identifying”
`
`step.
`
`F.
`45.
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’865 Patent
`
`at the time of its invention would have had a Bachelor’s of science degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a closely-
`
`related field, and at least 2 years of work or research experience in the field of
`
`machine learning or a closely related field. More work experience could
`
`compensate for less education, and vice versa. At the time of the earliest filing
`
`date to which the ‘865 Patent claims priority, I was at least a person of ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`46.
`
`I note that the Allen Declaration defines a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as having a Bachelor of Science degree in either computer science or electrical
`
`engineering, together with at least two years of study in an advanced degree
`
`program in artificial intelligence, machine learning, or pattern recognition, or
`
`comparable work experience.
`
`47. To the extent there are any differences in these two definitions of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I do not believe that there is a meaningful change of
`
`outcome using one definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or the other.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 29
`
`
`
`G. Opinions about Louch and Petitioner’s mapping to the challenged
`claims
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,676,224 to Louch (“Louch”). I have also
`
`48.
`
`reviewed Petitioner’s mapping of “GROUND-2A” asserting Louch anticipates
`
`Claims 1-4, 15-17, 21-23, 28, 29, 46, 47.” I have also reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`mapping of “GROUND-2B” asserting that “Louch or Louch in view of Nadkarni
`
`renders obvious Claims 5-10, 18-20, 24-27, 30, 48-53” as it relates to Petitioner’s
`
`assertion that Louch discloses certain elements of Claims 5, 24, 28. I understand
`
`that Petitioner also asserted other grounds alleging obviousness of certain claims
`
`based on Louch in view of additional references. My opinions relate to
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Louch to challenged claims. I have not been asked to
`
`address those additional references. I note the additional grounds relate solely to
`
`dependent claims. For the reasons described below, Louch does not anticipate the
`
`challenged independent claims (Claims 1, 21, or 46), or dependent Claims 3, 4, 5,
`
`22, 23, 24, 27, or 48. The claims addressed in GROUND-2B and GROUND-2C
`
`are not anticipated based on the fact that they depend on claims I address.
`
`i.
`Overview of Louch
`49. Louch discloses a “speakerphone system integrated in a mobile device is
`
`automatically controlled based on the current state of the mobile device.” Ex. 1011
`
`at Abstract. Louch Figure 4 shows an overview of the process:
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 29
`
`
`
`Louch Figure 4
`
`
`
`50.
`
`In this process, step 410 relates to state detection: “input from one or more
`
`sensors on the mobile device are used to determine a current state of the mobile
`
`device (410).” Id. at 8:24-27. Louch describes this state detection process as a
`
`single step. Louch explains:
`
`In some implementations, the determining can include detecting and
`determining two or more different states based on inputs from two or
`more different sensors. For example, the mobile device can detect that
`the mobile device is being held or gripped, and also that the sound as
`well as the light sensors indicate proximity, to cross-check and/or
`determine a level of proximity and/or motion of the device.
`Id. at 8:32-39.
`
`51. Louch describes three example states and properties of those states:
`
` “a first state of the mobile device 100 can be defined by a first proximity
`
`sensor on the back side of the mobile device 100 sensing proximity to an
`
`object (e.g., a table top surface) and a motion sensor not sensing motion of the
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 29
`
`
`
`mobile device 100 (e.g., acceleration is below a threshold value)” Id. at 2:63-
`
`67.
`
` “A second state of the mobile device 100 can be defined by the motion sensor
`
`sensing motion (e.g., acceleration above a threshold value).” Id. at 3:3-10.
`
` “A third state of the mobile device 100 can be defined by a second proximity
`
`sensor located on the front side of the mobile device 100 sensing proximity to
`
`an object (e.g., the user's head) and the motion sensor not sensing motion of
`
`the mobile device 100 (e.g., acceleration is again below a threshold value).”
`
`Id. at 3:16-21.
`
`52.
`
`In each case, Louch explains that the recited “combination of these sensor
`
`inputs can place the state machine of the mobile device 100” in the corresponding
`
`state. Id. at 2:67-3:1, 3:10-11, 3:21-22. Louch never suggests state detection
`
`includes multiple stages. Louch also never suggests monitoring less than all
`
`available sensors. Nor does Louch ever suggest attempting to detect less than all
`
`patterns at any time.
`
`53. Louch states that “in some implementations,” “the mobile device 100 can
`
`have a learning mode.” Id. at 10:3-22. In that “learning mode,” “the device 100
`
`can ‘learn’ by recording a detected state of the device.” Id. This disclosure of
`
`Louch describes the basic concept of a device defining patterns for subsequent
`
`matching at a later time. Dr. Allen labels that later mode “recognition mode.” Ex.
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 29
`
`
`
`2003 at 106:2-6. Claim 1 of Louch also refers to that later mode after learning
`
`mode as an “automatic control mode.” Ex. 1011 at 12:30.
`
`54. The “learning mode” and later “recognition mode” of Louch do not form a
`
`multi-stage process as recited in the challenged claims. Rather, the “learning
`
`mode” could occur years earlier than “recognition mode.” The only relationship
`
`between the two modes is that patterns defined in the “learning mode” are what are
`
`later used when conducting pattern recognition starting from scratch. When a
`
`pattern is recognized in “recognition” mode, there are not two patterns. Rather, the
`
`same pattern that was seen previously is simply found again. This is the case when
`
`Claim 1 of Louch refers to “recording a first movement pattern of a mobile device
`
`in a learning mode” and “after the recording of the first movement pattern in the
`
`learning mode, and during an automatic control mode, detecting a second
`
`movement pattern of the mobile device.” That “first movement pattern” and
`
`“second movement pattern,” if the pattern recognition is successful, are the same
`
`pattern.
`
`55. Louch states:
`
`In some implementations, the mobile device 100 can include a time
`sensor (e.g., using the internal clock of the mobile device 100), which
`detects a duration for a certain state (e.g., position, or orientation) of
`the mobile device 100. The detected duration can be used to determine
`if a control action will be triggered, to prevent overly frequent,
`unnecessary responses to each state change. By way of illustration, if
`the state change does not exceed a certain amount of time, e.g., five
`seconds, an assumption can be made that the state change is temporal,
`
`
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 29
`
`
`
`and therefore no control action will be triggered in response. By
`contrast, if the state change lasts longer than five seconds, an
`assumption can be made that the state change will remain for a longer
`period, and thus a control action can be triggered accordingly.
`The decision whether to trigger a corresponding control action can
`also be made upon detection of time in combination with a transition
`distance of the mobile device 100, to enhance accuracy of the state
`determination. For example, in FIGS. 1A and 1B, if the mobile device
`100 has been raised by the user 110 by twenty feet, for a interval
`exceeding five seconds, an assumption can be made that the user
`intends
`to use
`the handset
`for
`the
`telephone conversation.
`Accordingly, the speakerphone system can be deactivated in response
`to the assumption. Otherwise, the speakerphone system can remain
`unchanged until the state change is greater than a certain amount on
`time or distance.
`Id. at 5:7-32.
`
`56. The above passage explains alternative ways to define the patterns used as
`
`part of the system of Louch. That is, rather than triggering a control action based
`
`solely on “position, or orientation,” the system may be alternatively designed to
`
`trigger a control action based on movement values of variables such as position or
`
`orientation in combination with a duration or transition distance element. In such
`
`an alternative case, that complete pattern is t
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
