IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Vidya Narayanan, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,768,865 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0042IP2
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 1, 2014
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/269,516
`
`Filing Date:
`October 7, 2011
`
`Title:
`LEARNING SITUATIONS VIA PATTERN MATCHING
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 8,768,865 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .......................................................................... 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ................................................................................ 5 
`B.  Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 5 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’865 PATENT ............................................................. 6 
`A.  Brief Description ....................................................................................... 6 
`B.  Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’865 Patent ........................ 10 
`C.  Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ............................ 11 
`“condition” (claim 1/21/46) .................................................................... 11 
`“pattern” (claim 1/21/46) ........................................................................ 12 
`“fixing a subset of varying parameters associated with said first pattern”
`(claim 1/21/46) .............................................................................. 13 
`“temporal pattern” (claim 6/25/49) ......................................................... 14 
`“condition database” (claim 12/13) ........................................................ 15 
`“correlation database” (claim 12/14) ...................................................... 15 
`III.  APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............. 15 
`  GROUND-2A–Louch anticipates Claims 1-4, 15-17, 21-23, 28, 29, 46,
`47
` ....................................................................................................... 16 
`  GROUND-2B–Louch or Louch in view of Nadkarni renders obvious
`Claims 5-10, 18-20, 24-27, 30, 48-53 ..................................................... 41 
`  GROUND-2C–Louch or Louch and Nadkarni in view of Greenhill
`renders obvious Claims 12-14 ................................................................ 62 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 69 
`V.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 69 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 69 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 69 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 69 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................ 70 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865 to Narayanan, et al. (“the ‘865 pa-
`tent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘865 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`(Reserved)
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. James Allen
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`Wang et al, “A Framework of Energy Efficient Mobile Sensing
`for Automatic User State Recognition”, Proceedings of the 7th
`international conference on Mobile systems, applications, and
`services, pp. 179-192 , Kraków, Poland — June 22 - 25, 2009
`(“Wang”)
`
`“Qualcomm Incorporated Compliant for Patent Infringement,”
`filed on November 29th, 2017, from Case No. 3:17-cv-02402-
`WQH-MDD filed in S.D. CA. (“Compliant”)
`
`Exhibit 865 of “Qualcomm Inc.’s Patent Initial Infringement
`Contentions,” filed on March 2nd, 2018, from Case No. 3:17-cv-
`02402-WQH-MDD filed in S.D. CA. (“Infringement Conten-
`tions”)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217533 to Nad-
`karni et al. (“Nadkarni”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0297513 to
`Greenhill et al. (“Greenhill”)
`
`2
`
`

`

`APPLE-1010
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Webpage of “Nokia N95 8GB - Full phone specifications” (Ar-
`chive.org version dated 05/26/2009, http://web.ar-
`chive.org/web/20090526054459/http://www.gsma-
`rena.com:80/nokia_n95_8gb-2088.php) (“Nokia N95”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 8,676,224 to Louch (“Louch”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0066383 to Jan-
`gle et al. (“Jangle”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9575776 to De Andrade Cajahyba et al. (“De
`Andrade Cajahyba”)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0081634 to Ku-
`rata (“Kurata”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`Declaration of Mr. Chris Butler for Nokia N95/APPLE-1010
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Delman for Wang/APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`Cohn, D., Caruana, R., & McCallum, A. Semi-supervised clus-
`tering with user feedback in Constrained Clustering: Advances
`in Algorithms, Theory, and Applications, 4(1), 17-32. (2009)
`(“Cohn”)
`
`Ruzzelli, A., Nicolas, C. Schoofs, A., O;”Hare, G. Real-time
`recognition and profiling of appliances through a single elec-
`tricity sensor, Proc. 7th Annual IEEE Conference on Sensor
`Mesh (SECON), Boston. MA 2010. (“Ruzzelli”)
`
`Cilla, R., Particio, M., Garcia, J., Berlanga, A., and Molina, J.
`Recognizing Human Activities from Sensors Using Hidden
`Markov Models Constructed by Feature Selection, Algorithms
`2009, 2: pp282-300. (“Cilla”)
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`The Seventh Edition of the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms (2000)
`
`3
`
`

`

`APPLE-1021
`
`Declaration of Dr. James Allen
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-10, 12-30, 46-
`
`53 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865 (“the ’865 Patent”).
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at
`
`least the references presented in this petition. Apple respectfully submits that an
`
`IPR should be instituted and the Challenged Claims should be canceled as un-
`
`patentable.
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Apple certifies that the ’865 Patent is available for IPR. The present petition
`
`is being filed within one year of service of a complaint against Apple in Case No.
`
`3:17-cv-02402-WQH-MDD (S.D. CA). Apple is not barred or estopped from re-
`
`questing this review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds in the table
`
`below, as explained in this petition and APPLE-1021, Dr. James Allen’s Declara-
`
`tion (“Expert-Declaration2”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`’865 Patent Claims
`Claims 1-4, 15-17, 21-
`23, 28, 29, 46, 47
`Claims 5-10, 18-20, 24-
`27, 30, 48-53
`Claims 12-14
`
`Ground
`Ground
`2A
`Ground
`2B
`Ground
`2C
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Basis for Rejection
`§102: Louch
`
`§103-Louch alone or Louch in view of
`Nadkarni
`§103-Louch in view of Nadkarni and
`Greenhill
`
`The earliest proclaimed priority date of the ‘865 Patent is 01/19/2011(the
`
`“Critical Date”). Each reference pre-dates this and qualifies as prior art:
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Louch
`
`02/19/2008 (filed)
`
`Nadkarni
`
`02/23/2009 (provisional filed);
`
`09/15/2009 (utility filed)
`
`Section
`
`102(e)
`
`102(e)
`
`Greenhill
`
`12/04/2008 (published)
`
`102(b)
`
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’865 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’865 Patent relates to machine learning of situations via pattern match-
`
`ing or recognition. APPLE-1001, Abstract. The ’865 Patent explains that “a ma-
`
`chine learning approach for mobile devices to be able to understand what associ-
`
`ated users are doing … continues to be an area of development,” and “a learning
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`approach … may include one or more signal-related pattern recognition techniques
`
`… to classify one or more sensor-related observations.” APPLE-1001, 6:36-46.
`
`The ’865 Patent includes 53 claims, of which claims 1, 21, 31 and 46 are independ-
`
`ent.
`
`Recognizing that “continually tracking or monitoring all or most varying pa-
`
`rameters … of sensor information may be computationally intensive, resource-con-
`
`suming, at times intractable, or otherwise less than efficient or effective[,]” AP-
`
`PLE-1001,7:58-63, the ’865 Patent proposes to “monitor one or more conditions”
`
`and “upon or after detecting these one or more conditions or events, a mobile de-
`
`vice may, for example, selectively initiate a process to attempt to recognize a par-
`
`ticular signal-related pattern that occurs in connection with the detected condition.”
`
`APPLE-1001,7:64-8:11.
`
`FIG. 4 is a representative process 400 of the ’865 Patent and aligns with the
`
`claims (see comparison between claims and FIG. 4 of the ‘865 Patent below). At
`
`402, one or more input signals from multiple information sources associated with a
`
`mobile device are monitored. At 404, at least one condition is detected based on at
`
`least one of monitored input signals. At 406, a first pattern is identified based on at
`
`least one detected condition. At 408, one or more varying parameters or variables
`
`are fixed in some manner. At 410, a process to attempt a recognition of a second
`
`pattern is initiated in connection with monitoring these input signals based on the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`first identified pattern. See APPLE-1001,14:43-15:48.
`
`Notably, it is not until dependent claim 3 that the step 410 recognizing a sec-
`
`ond pattern is introduced. But even claim 3 fails to require the detail of step 410.
`
`Claim 3 recites “recognition of a second pattern …. based,1 at least in part, on
`
`said first identified pattern,” but fails to capture the purported invention that em-
`
`phasizes the existence of a detected “condition” and then identifying a “signal-re-
`
`lated pattern that occurs in connection with the detected condition.” Claim 3 in-
`
`stead broadly references “pattern.” APPLE-1001,7:64-8:11, claim 3. As discussed
`
`below, this is a classic case of over-claiming, as claims of the ’865 Patent are
`
`drafted so broadly that they go well beyond even the purported invention. Expert-
`
`Declaration2, [0014]-[0048].
`
`In fact, as shown below, the ’865 Patent admits that at least steps 402, 406,
`
`and 408 (and thus the corresponding claim limitations) are typical and known in
`
`existing pattern recognition techniques. See APPLE-1001, 6:36-7:5; Expert-Decla-
`
`ration2, [0032]-[0048]. For example, the ’865 Patent admits that it had been typical
`
`that input signals from information sources associated with a mobile device are
`
`monitored (step 402) and a pattern is identified based on monitored input signals
`
`
`1 Bold represents emphasis added by Petitioner in each citation, unless otherwise
`
`specified.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`(step 406): “Typically,… one or more patterns to be identified may, for example,
`
`be represented via one or more vectors of observations in multiple dimensions
`
`[that]correspond, for example, to a signal attribute … in a set of information
`
`sources that may be monitored in some manner,” APPLE-1001, 7:3-8, 6:46-55;
`
`Expert-Declaration2, [0040],[0042]. The ’865 Patent further acknowledges step
`
`408 is typical in that a subset of parameters associated with the pattern is fixed,
`
`wherein the parameters are derived from the monitored input signals from the in-
`
`formation sources: “typical pattern recognition approaches generally employ
`
`processes or algorithms that work with a fixed known number of information
`
`sources.” APPLE-1001, 7:3-5; Expert-Declaration2, [0043].
`
`Only steps 404 and 410 differentiate the claimed process 400 and the pattern
`
`recognition approaches that are admittedly typical, and any such a distinction be-
`
`comes inconsequential when considering the manner in which steps 404 and 410
`
`are described. Expert-Declaration2, [0041], [0044]. Specifically, step 404 involves
`
`detecting a condition based on input signals, and step 410 involves recognizing a
`
`second pattern based on the first pattern. Cf. APPLE-1001, 6:36-7:5. Yet the ’865
`
`Patent defines the term “condition” broadly to encompass almost any time, event,
`
`state, or action: “a condition or event of interest may include, for example, a time
`
`of day, day of week, state or action of a host application, action of a user operating
`
`a mobile device … or the like." APPLE-1001, 14:60-64. Detecting such a time,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`event, state, or action based on at least one monitored input sensor signals (step
`
`404) would again be a routine, commonsensical technique, well within the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. See APPLE-1013, Abstract; APPLE-1014, [0102]; AP-
`
`PLE-1019, Abstract; Expert-Declaration2, [0041]. And recognizing a second pat-
`
`tern based on the first pattern (step 410) had also been known and implemented,
`
`for example, at least in prior-art systems that detect a state transition. See e.g., AP-
`
`PLE-1005, Abstract (see APPLE-1016). See also APPLE-1011, 12:29-33. Expert-
`
`Declaration2, [0044].
`
`As discussed above and further detailed below in Section III into which this
`
`Summary is thereby incorporated by reference, each and every element of the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’865 Patent had been known in the art. See Expert-Dec-
`
`laration2, [0009]-[0259].
`
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’865 Patent
`In response to an assertion anticipation of various claims by Jangle, Appli-
`
`cant amended independent claims as follows. See APPLE-1002, pp29-58; APPLE-
`
`1012.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`A Notice of Allowance followed with no reasons for allowability. APPLE-
`
`
`
`1002, pp18-22.
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`Unless otherwise noted below, Petitioner gives all terms their plain meaning,
`
`but does not waive any arguments concerning indefiniteness or claim scope that
`
`may be raised in litigation. Expert-Declaration2, [0049]-[0074].
`
`“condition” (claim 1/21/46)
`The ’865 Patent expressly discloses that “a condition or event of interest
`
`may include, for example, a time of day, day of week, state or action of a host ap-
`
`plication, action of a user operating a mobile device (e.g., silencing a ringer, mut-
`
`ing a call, sending a text message, etc.) or the like,” and further discloses that
`
`“user-related events or conditions” may include “walking, driving, fidgeting,
`
`etc.” APPLE-1001, 7:40-45, 14:60-64. Accordingly, the term “condition” is broad
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`enough to encompass at least the above-listed items. Expert-Declaration2, [0050]-
`
`[0051].
`
`“pattern” (claim 1/21/46)
`The term “pattern” is broad enough to encompass a “collection of one or
`
`more parameter values.” The ’865 Patent makes clear that “a signal-related pat-
`
`tern may comprise, for example, a number of varying parameters or variables
`
`of interest that may be represented via one or more signal sample values derived
`
`from a multi-dimensional stream of sensor-related information.” APPLE-1001,
`
`9:63-67; see also APPLE-1001, 6:49-55 (noting that patterns may be “represented
`
`by one or more vectors or observations in multiple dimensions,” which in turn may
`
`be “represented via a variable, etc.”). Additionally, several dependent claims con-
`
`firm the relationship between patterns and parameters. E.g., APPLE-1001, Claim
`
`17 (“The method of claim 1, wherein said fixed subset of said varying parameters
`
`comprises said first pattern.”).
`
`That a pattern may encompass a “collection of one or more parameter val-
`
`ues” is confirmed by the patent’s disclosed embodiment of a pattern:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`APPLE-1001-Fig. 3 (highlighted)
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 of the ’865 Patent shows an embodiment of a pattern that corresponds to the
`
`user running in a gym. APPLE-1001, 10:34-44. This pattern includes two param-
`
`eter values: (1) the sound intensity is “Loud,” and (2) the detected periodic move-
`
`ment corresponds to “Running.” Thus, “pattern” is at least broad enough to en-
`
`compass a “collection of one or more parameter values.” Expert-Declaration2,
`
`[0052]-[0058].
`
`“fixing a subset of varying parameters associated with said first
`pattern” (claim 1/21/46)
`This phrase is broad enough to encompass “associating at least one parame-
`
`ter of a subset of varying parameters with the first pattern to represent at least one
`
`detected condition.” The ’865 Patent explains that “a subset [of one or more vary-
`
`ing parameters or variables]may be fixed, for example, by associating parameters
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`or variables with a particular, distinct, or otherwise suitable pattern to represent a
`
`certain detected condition or event.” APPLE-1001, 15:9-12. During prosecution of
`
`the ’865 Patent, the applicant incorporated this embodiment of “fixing” directly
`
`into the claim language:
`
`APPLE-1002, p40 (highlighted)
`
`
`And, the issued claims themselves state that “fixing a subset of varying pa-
`
`
`
`rameters associated with said first pattern” is satisfied “by associating at least one
`
`parameter of said subset of varying parameters with said first pattern to represent
`
`said at least one detected condition.” APPLE-1001, e.g., Claim 1. Expert-Declara-
`
`tion2, [0059]-[0063].
`
`“temporal pattern” (claim 6/25/49)
`The term is broad enough to encompass “a pattern defined, at least in part,
`
`by a time-related parameter or characteristic,” as noted by the ‘865 Patent specifi-
`
`cation. APPLE-1001, 9:18-20 (“a signal-related pattern defined, at least in part, by
`
`a time-related parameter or characteristic”). The ‘865 Patent further discloses that
`
`“a temporal pattern may comprise or be associated with one or more events or con-
`
`ditions that exist or last for a certain threshold duration.” APPLE-1001, 9:27-29.
`
`Expert-Declaration2, [0064]-[0066].
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`“condition database” (claim 12/13)
`The term “condition database” is broad enough to encompass “a database
`
`storing condition information or data such as one or more input signals obtained by
`
`one or more sensors.” The ’865 Patent does not define this term, but this construc-
`
`tion accounts for the plain and ordinary meaning and is consistent with the ’865
`
`Patent, as claim 13 clarifies that “said condition database comprises said at least
`
`one context-related information stream,” and the ’865 Patent explains that “a
`
`monitored information stream may comprise, for example, one or more input
`
`signals obtained by one or more sensors associated with a mobile device and de-
`
`fining one or more context-related information streams.” APPLE-1001, 8:38-
`
`41. Expert-Declaration2, [0067]-[0069].
`
`“correlation database” (claim 12/14)
`This term should be construed to encompass “a database storing correlation
`
`data.” While the ’865 Patent does not define this term, this construction is con-
`
`sistent with the ’865 Patent disclosure, which notes that “a correlation between a
`
`condition or event and a context stream may be stored in a suitable database,
`
`such as in an event correlation database.” APPLE-1001, 11:7-10. Expert-Decla-
`
`ration2, [0070]-[0072].
`
`III. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Although preceded with different preambles and corresponding forms of fea-
`
`tures thereafter (e.g., “monitoring” vs. “monitor”), claims 21-53 recite features of
`
`similar scope to those recited by claims 1-20. To promote efficiency, correspond-
`
`ing elements are addressed together. Also, for each dependent claim, discussions
`
`regarding base claims are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
` GROUND-2A–Louch anticipates Claims 1-4, 15-17, 21-23, 28, 29,
`46, 47
`Louch discloses “A speakerphone system integrated in a mobile device is
`
`automatically controlled based on the current state of the mobile device.” APPLE-
`
`1011, Abstract. Louch explains that control is based on machine learning as “the
`
`mobile device 100 ‘learns’ particular characteristics or patterns of the state of
`
`the device and/or the user's interactions with the device 100 in view of the state to
`
`determine which control action should be issued.” APPLE-1011, 10:3-6.
`
`Similar to the ’865 Patent, Louch discloses monitoring one or more input
`
`signals from “one or more sensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyro, light sensor, proxim-
`
`ity sensor) integrated into the mobile device 100.” APPLE-1011, 2:20-22. Louch
`
`discloses that the “input from one or more sensors on the mobile device are used to
`
`determine a current state of the mobile device,” which is a condition of interest.
`
`APPLE-1011, 8:24-26. Expert-Declaration2, [0098]-[0100].
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Louch further discloses identifying patterns based on at least one detected
`
`condition or event (e.g., the state) by disclosing that “the mobile device 100
`
`‘learns’ particular characteristics or patterns of the state of the device and/or
`
`the user’s interactions with the device 100 in view of the state.” APPLE-1011,
`
`10:3-7. Indeed, Louch deems that each pattern is corresponding to a state and thus
`
`is determined based on the state. Expert-Declaration2, [0098]-[0099].
`
`Moreover, Louch discloses multiple mappings of the claimed “first pattern”
`
`and “second pattern” in the ‘865 Patent. Expert-Declaration2, [0100]-[0105]. As
`
`one example, claim 1 of Louch explicitly recites identifying and recording a first
`
`pattern of a first state based on sensor data acquired by one or more sensors of the
`
`mobile device, and later recognizing a second pattern in connection with monitor-
`
`ing these input sensor data based on a first identified pattern of the first state:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`recording a first movement pattern of a mobile device in a
`learning mode, the first movement pattern of the mobile device being
`recorded according to sensor data acquired by one or more sensors
`of the mobile device during the learning mode;
`
`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;
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`comparing the first movement pattern and the second
`movement pattern;
`
`...
`
`APPLE-1011, claim 1.
`
`
`Claim 1 of Louch also makes it clear that one or more varying parameters or
`
`variables are fixed and may be stored in a suitable database. as it recites “record-
`
`ing a first movement pattern of a mobile device,” where the recording is “accord-
`
`ing to sensor data acquired by one or more sensors of the mobile device during the
`
`learning mode.” APPLE-1011, claim 1. See APPLE-1011, 10:12-13 (“the one or
`
`more patterns already stored in the device”); Expert-Declaration2, [0102].
`
`Louch provides for another mapping of the claimed “first pattern” and “sec-
`
`ond pattern.” Louch discloses “a pattern of a first state” as the “first pattern,” and
`
`where the first pattern exists for more than “a certain amount on time or distance,”
`
`this first pattern plus the time or distance constitutes the “second pattern.” For ex-
`
`ample, Louch discloses that “to enhance accuracy of the state determination,” a du-
`
`ration can be taken into consideration in recognizing a pattern to represent a state
`
`for triggering a control action. See APPLE-1011, 5:21-24 (“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.”). Louch further discloses that “the mobile
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`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 ori-
`
`entation) of the mobile device 100. The detected duration can be used to deter-
`
`mine if a control action will be triggered, to prevent overly frequent, unneces-
`
`sary responses to each state change.” APPLE-1011, 5:7-13. The second pattern is
`
`recognized based on monitoring the input sensor data corresponding to the first
`
`identified pattern of the first state, as well as the time duration. See Expert-Declara-
`
`tion2, [0103]-[0106].
`
`Thus Louch discloses multiple mappings that meets all steps of the same
`
`representative process 400 of the ‘865 Patent. Expert-Declaration2, [0107]. In fact,
`
`as set forth above and in greater detail below, Louch discloses most, if not all,
`
`claim elements of the ’865 Patent. See Expert-Declaration2, [0098]-[0203].
`
`[1Pre]A method comprising:
`Louch discloses with respect to FIG. 4 “an example process 400 for manag-
`
`ing a mobile device's speakerphone system based on a current state of the mobile
`
`device 100.” APPLE-1011, 8:18-21. Louch also claims a method. See, e.g., “A
`
`method comprising:…” APPLE-1011, claim 1. Expert-Declaration2, [0108].
`
`[21Pre]An apparatus comprising: a mobile device comprising at least one
`processor configured to:
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Louch discloses an apparatus comprising a mobile device by disclosing “a
`
`mobile phone 100.” See e.g., APPLE-1011, FIGS. 1 and 3. “The mobile de-
`
`vice 100 can include a memory interface 302, one or more data processors, im-
`
`age processors and/or central processing units 304, and a peripherals inter-
`
`face 306.” APPLE-1011, 6:6-11. See also claim 17 that recites “A system, com-
`
`prising: a processor: a computer-readable medium coupled to the processor and op-
`
`erable for storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the
`
`processor to perform operations comprising.” Louch thus discloses an apparatus
`
`comprising a mobile device that comprising at least one processor. Expert-Declara-
`
`tion2, [0109].
`
`[46Pre]An article comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having in-
`structions stored thereon executable by a special purpose computing plat-
`form at a mobile device to:
`Louch discloses an article comprising: a non-transitory storage medium hav-
`
`ing instructions stored thereon by disclosing “Computer-readable media suitable
`
`for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-
`
`volatile memory, media and memory devices,” APPLE-1011, 11:37-40, and spec-
`
`ifies that “The mobile device 100 can include a memory interface 302” “coupled to
`
`memory 350. The memory 350 can include high-speed random access memory
`
`and/or non-volatile memory.” APPLE-1011, 6:6-11, 7:21-23.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`Louch further describes using a computer-readable medium by data pro-
`
`cessing apparatus that includes one or more processors:
`
`The disclosed and other embodiments can be implemented as one
`or more computer program products, i.e., one or more modules of
`computer program instructions encoded on a computer-readable me-
`dium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data pro-
`cessing apparatus. The computer-readable medium can be a ma-
`chine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a
`memory device, a composition of matter effecting a machine-readable
`propagated signal, or a combination of one or more them. The term
`“data processing apparatus” encompasses all apparatus, devices,
`and machines for processing data, including by way of example a
`programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or
`computers.
`
`APPLE-1011, 10:44-58.
`
`Louch further describes the mobile device 100 include “one or more data
`
`processors, image processors and/or central processing units 304,” APPLE-
`
`1011, 6:6-11. Together, these components of the mobile device represent the re-
`
`cited special purpose computing platform required by the preamble as Louch
`
`makes it clear that “The processes and logic flows described in this specification
`
`can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or
`
`more computer programs to perform functions” and “The processes and logic
`
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, spe-
`
`cial purpose logic circuitry.” APPLE-1011, 11:17-24. See Expert-Declaration2,
`
`[0110]-[0112].
`
`[1a/21a/46a]monitoring, at a mobile device,/monitor/monitor 2 input signals
`from a plurality of information sources associated with said mobile device;
`Louch discloses monitoring, at a mobile device, input signals from a plural-
`
`ity of information sources associated with the mobile device by disclosing that “in-
`
`put from one or more sensors on the mobile device are used to determine a cur-
`
`rent state of the mobile device (410).” APPLE-1011, 8:24-26. Louch makes it clear
`
`that “input from one or more sensors” are monitored, i.e., tracked, as Louch dis-
`
`closes that “a state machine” is used “to maintain the current state of the mobile
`
`device 100. The state machine can track various combinations of inputs which
`
`can cause a state change to occur.” APPLE-1011, 2:52-56. Expert-Declaration2,
`
`[0113]-[0115].
`
`[1b/21b/46b]detecting/detect at least one condition based, at least in part,
`on at least one of said monitored input signals;
`
`
`2 With all other terms common, claims 1, 21, and 46 recite “monitoring, at a mo-
`
`bile device,” “monitor,” and “monitor,” respectively. In the following, to be con-
`
`cise, the common terms are reproduced without alternating the meaning of each
`
`limitation, unless otherwise specified.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`As construed above, the term “condition” is defined broadly by the ’865 Pa-
`
`tent, at least encompassing “state or action of a host application, action of a user
`
`operating a mobile device.” APPLE-1001, 14:60-64. Louch discloses a “state”
`
`that falls within the interpretation of the term “condition” by disclosing a “state of
`
`the device and/or the user’s interactions with the device.” APPLE-1011, 10:4-5.
`
`Louch explains that “[a]n example state can be a change of the mobile device’s po-
`
`sition or orientation relative to a user of the mobile device or a reference frame.”
`
`APPLE-1011, 8:26-29. Louch also discloses several states of the mobile device
`
`that are defined in terms of actions of the user operating the device. See, e.g., AP-
`
`PLE-1011, Fig. 5 (listing example states of the mobile device including “The Mo-
`
`bile Device being Gripped/Released by a User” and “The Mobile Device Receiv-
`
`ing Input / Not Receiving From User Interface”). Moreover, the patterns disclosed
`
`by Louch for detecting states of the device also include the user’s interactions with
`
`the device. APPLE-1011, 10:3-7 (“[T]he mobile device 100 ‘learns’ particular
`
`characteristics or patterns of the state of the device and/or the user’s interac-
`
`tions with the device 100.”) See Expert-Declaration2, [0116]-[0118].
`
`Louch expressly discloses detecting at least one condition (e.g., a “state”)
`
`based on at least one the monitored input signals (e.g., “input from one or more
`
`sensors”). For example, Louch discloses “input from one or more sensors on the
`
`mobile device are used to determine a current state of the mobile device
`
`23
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0042IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`(410).” APPLE-1011, 8:24-26. Louch further discloses, “The states can be deter-
`
`mined based on sensor inputs, as described in reference to F