throbber
Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`52959.48
`
`27683
`
`In re patent of Kahn, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`
`Issued: October 28, 2014
`
`
`Title: Method and System for
`Waking a Device Due to Motion
`
`
`
`
`
`§ Petition for Inter Partes Review

`
`§ Attorney Docket No.:

`
`§ Customer No.:

`
`§ Real Party in Interest: Apple Inc.

`

`

`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Joseph A. Paradiso, PhD
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1010
`
`Page 1 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 3
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................... 9
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................10
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................11
`B. Obviousness ...........................................................................................11
`IV. BACKGROUND OF ACCELEROMETERS ...............................................13
`V.
`THE ’646 PATENT .......................................................................................14
`A. Overview of the ’646 Patent ..................................................................14
`1. Alleged Problem .............................................................................14
`2. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’646 Patent ........................15
`B. Prosecution History of the ’646 Patent ..................................................16
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ...................................20
`A. “glitch” ...................................................................................................21
`B. “a change in the dominant axis” ............................................................21
`C. “dominant axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a dominant
`axis of the mobile device based on the motion data” ............................22
`D. “dominant axis logic … to compare a difference between a current
`sample value along the dominant axis determined based on the motion
`of the device and the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a
`threshold value” .....................................................................................23
`E. “computation logic to determine whether the motion caused a change in
`the dominant axis” .................................................................................25
`“power logic to wake up the device when the motion of the device
`indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device” .........................26
`
`F.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`VII.
`
`G. “power logic to move the device from the inactive state to an active
`state upon detection of a change in the dominant axis which is the axis
`experiencing the largest effect of gravity” ............................................27
`H. “long average logic to calculate an average of accelerations over a
`sample period” .......................................................................................28
`“device state logic to restore the device a last active state” ..................29
`I.
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....30
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103 over Pasolini in view of Goldman,
`McMahan, and Mizell ............................................................................30
`1. Summary of Pasolini ......................................................................31
`2. Summary of Goldman ....................................................................34
`3. Reasons to combine Pasolini and Goldman ...................................36
`4. Summary of McMahan ..................................................................40
`5. Reasons to combine McMahan with Pasolini and Goldman .........41
`6. Summary of Mizell ........................................................................42
`7. Reasons to combine Mizell with Pasolini and Goldman ...............42
`8. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................43
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 8, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C
`§103 over Pasolini in view of Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park .82
`1. Summary of Park ............................................................................82
`2. Reasons to Combine Park with Pasolini and Goldman .................83
`3. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................83
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................86
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646 (“the ’646 patent”) to
`
`Kahn, et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$500/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1,
`
`3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 of the ’646 patent are unpatentable, either because they are
`
`anticipated or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`opinion that all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The ’646 patent, Exhibit 1001 (APPL-1001);
`
`The prosecution history of the ’646 patent, Exhibit 1002 APPL-
`
`1002);
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`c)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 to Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”),
`
`Exhibit 1003 (APPL-1003).
`
`d)
`
`Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer, Ron Goldman, Sun
`
`Microsystems Inc. Dated February 23, 2007. (“Goldman”),
`
`Exhibit 1004 (APPL-1004);
`
`e) U.S. Patent No. 7,204,123 to McMahan et al. (“McMahan”),
`
`Exhibit 1005 (APPL-1005);
`
`f)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0161377 to Rakkola et al.
`
`(“Rakkola”), Exhibit 1006 (APPL-1006);
`
`g)
`
`Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer Orientation,” David
`
`Mizell, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International
`
`Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC ’03) 2003.
`
`(“Mizell”), Exhibit 1007 (APPL-1007);
`
`h)
`
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, McGraw-Hill
`
`(“McGraw-Hill”), 1994, Exhibit 1009 (APPL-1009);
`
`i)
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., Merriam-
`
`Webster, Inc., 2002, Exhibit 1013 (APPL-1013);
`
`j)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 to Park et al. (“Park”), Exhibit 1014
`
`(APPL-1014).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a)
`
`The documents listed above, and
`
`b) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the
`
`field of wireless communications, as described below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in APPL-1011. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`7.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to various
`
`fields of physical, electrical, and computer science with more than two decades
`
`focused on embedding sensing, including wearable and wireless sensors. I have 20
`
`years of experience in wearable devices and computing, during which I invented
`
`and fielded many types of wearable activity tracking devices that utilized a variety
`
`of power management and wakeup protocols.
`
`8.
`
`I am the Alexander W. Dreyfoos (1954) Professor in Media Arts and
`
`Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I direct the
`
`Responsive Environments Group, which explores how sensor networks augment
`
`and mediate human experience, interaction and perception. I also have served as
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, a group of MIT Media Lab
`
`researchers and industrial partners focused on the future of embedded computation
`
`and sensing, and am now serving as our Associate Department Head.
`
`9.
`
`I received my B.S. in electrical engineering and physics summa cum
`
`laude from Tufts University in 1977 and my Ph.D. in physics from MIT in 1981.
`
`From 1981 to 1984, I did post-doctoral research at the Swiss Federal Institute of
`
`Technology (ETH) in Zurich, working on sensor technology for high-energy
`
`particle physics. From 1984-1994, I was a physicist at the Draper Laboratory in
`
`Cambridge, Massachusetts, where, as a member of the NASA Systems and
`
`Advanced Sensors and Signal Processing Directorates, my research included
`
`spacecraft control systems and sensor technology for both sonar systems and high-
`
`energy physics. I also worked at Draper Lab as an undergraduate (1974-1978) on
`
`software for advanced strategic inertial measurement units and guidance systems.
`
`From 1992-1994, I directed the development of precision alignment sensors for the
`
`GEM muon detector at the Superconducting Supercollider, and worked on design
`
`of particle detectors at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
`
`10.
`
`I joined the MIT Media Lab in 1994. The MIT Media Lab was
`
`founded in 1985 to actively promote a unique, anti-disciplinary culture that focuses
`
`on research projects joining different technological and academic fields. As
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`described further below, researchers at the MIT Media Lab have pioneered areas
`
`such as wearable computing, tangible interfaces, and affective computing.
`
`Examples of products or platforms spun off Media Lab research include electronic
`
`ink readers such as the Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook, the popular
`
`video game Guitar Hero, the MPEG-4 structured audio format, the first bionic
`
`lower-leg system for amputees, wireless mesh networks developed by Nortel, and
`
`the Mercury RFID Reader, commercialized by spin-off ThingMagic. Today, the
`
`Lab is supported by more than 70 sponsors/members, comprising some of the
`
`world’s leading corporations and representing the fields of electronics,
`
`entertainment, fashion, health care, greeting cards, and telecommunications, among
`
`others. Faculty members, research staff, and students at the Lab work in more than
`
`25 research groups on more than 350 projects that range from digital approaches
`
`for treating neurological disorders, to a stackable, electric car for sustainable cities,
`
`to advancing imaging technologies that can see around corners.
`
`11. Upon joining the Media Lab, I focused on developing new sensing
`
`modalities for human-computer interaction, then by 1997 evolved my research into
`
`wearable wireless sensing and distributed sensor networks. This work anticipated
`
`and influenced transformative products and industries that have blossomed in
`
`recent years. For example, the sensor-laden wireless shoe I developed for
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`interactive dance in 1997 is recognized as a watershed in the field of wearable
`
`wireless sensing and was an inspiration for the Nike+, one of the very first activity
`
`trackers and the first commercial product to integrate dynamic music with
`
`monitored exercise. My team went on to pioneer clinical gait analysis with
`
`wearable wireless sensors in collaboration with the Massachusetts General
`
`Hospital (MGH) in 2002, and then broke new ground in sports medicine with
`
`another MGH collaboration that developed an ultra-wide-range wireless inertial
`
`measurement unit system for evaluating professional baseball pitchers in 2007. My
`
`team and I have also been leaders on wearable sensing for Human-Computer
`
`Interfaces, over the past decade fielding, for example, wristbands to measure finger
`
`position, wristbands to enable pointing interaction and control of heating and
`
`lighting, and even a wireless touchpad mounted on a fingernail.
`
`12. Leading to over 300 publications, 17 issued patents, and a string of
`
`awards in the Pervasive Computing, Human Computer Interaction, and sensor
`
`network communities, my research has become the basis for widely established
`
`curricula. Many of these publications are directed to wearables. I have also advised
`
`over 55 graduate (MS and PhD) theses for students who have done their work in
`
`my research group, and served as a reader for roughly 100 MS and PhD students in
`
`other groups and at other universities. Some of my own students have gone on to
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`prominence in their own careers that have involved wearables—for example, Dr.
`
`Nan-Wei Gong (PhD 2013) was the R&D lead of Project Jacquard (integrating
`
`electronics and textiles) at Google ATAP before becoming founder and CEO of
`
`her own companies with a wearable focus ‘Circular2’ and ‘Figure8', and Dr. Stacy
`
`Morris Bamberg (PhD 2004) became a tenured professor at the University of Utah
`
`doing wearable gait analysis, then started a company in this space (Veristride). I
`
`have given over 280 invited talks, panel appearances, and seminars worldwide,
`
`recently keynoting on topics relating to ubiquitous sensing and the Internet of
`
`Things (IoT) for prestigious venues ranging from the Sensors Expo (the main
`
`industrial sensors conference) to the World Economic Forum. I am frequently
`
`asked to address industrial groups on wearables and IoT, and often engage with the
`
`Media Lab’s extensive list of industrial partners in strategizing these areas.
`
`13.
`
`I belong to and participate in various professional organizations. I am
`
`a senior member of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers),
`
`and also belong to the ACM (Association for Computer Machinery). I also belong
`
`to the APS American Physical Society (the major professional society in physics),
`
`and am a senior member in the AIAA (the American Institute of Aeronautics and
`
`Astronautics). Within the IEEE, I belong to the Signal Processing Society, the
`
`Controls Society, and the Computer Society. As detailed in my CV, I have served
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`on many Technical Program Committees (TPCs, which solicit, review, and select
`
`papers for academic conferences) and journal editorial boards, plus have organized
`
`academic conferences in areas such as wireless sensor networks, wearable
`
`computing and wearable sensing, human-computer interfaces, ubiquitous
`
`computing, etc.
`
`14. One of the themes of my research has been on low-power embedded
`
`systems and energy harvesting. I have written several well-regarded papers on
`
`these topics that well predate the ‘646 patent – for example, the review article that
`
`I wrote for IEEE Pervasive Computing in 2005, ‘Energy Scavenging for Mobile
`
`and Wireless Electronics’ has become their most popular article and is widely
`
`cited. My work on smart wakeup systems (e.g., as described in my papers such as
`
`‘A Framework for the Automated Generation of Power-Efficient Classifiers for
`
`Embedded Sensor Nodes’ and ‘CargoNet: A Low-Cost MicroPower Sensor Node
`
`Exploiting Quasi-Passive Wakeup for Adaptive Asynchronous Monitoring of
`
`Exceptional Events,’ both presented at SenSys 2007), are of relevance here. There
`
`is likewise nothing novel in 646’s treatment of ‘glitch detection’ – this was
`
`common practice at the time, as for example outlined in the ‘Outliers’ section
`
`starting on page 102 in my alumna Stacy Morris’ publically-available 2004 PhD
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`thesis ‘A Shoe-Integrated Sensor System for Wireless Gait Analysis and Real-
`
`Time Therapeutic Feedback’.
`
`
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`15.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`16.
`
`I am familiar with accelerometers (including those found in portable
`
`devices such as mobile phones). I am also aware of the state of the art at the time
`
`the application resulting in the ‘646 patent was filed. I have been informed by
`
`Apple’s counsel that the earliest alleged priority date for the ’646 patent is October
`
`8, 2008. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’646 patent, I believe that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who had,
`
`at the priority date of the ’646 patent, (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent training,
`
`as well as at least three years of technical experience in the field of computer
`
`systems and accelerometers; or (ii) in the alternative, someone who had a
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or equivalent training. Lack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience
`
`would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the
`
`industry and what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time.
`
`Based on this criteria, as of the relevant time frame for the ’646 patent, I
`
`possessed at least such experience and knowledge of a POSITA, as well as
`
`trained many of them by then, hence am qualified to opine on the ’646 patent.
`
`17. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of October 8,
`
`2008. Unless otherwise stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis
`
`below, it is consistent with the level of a POSITA prior to the priority date of the
`
`’646 patent.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I understand that prior art to the ’646 patent includes patents and
`18.
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’646 patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`asked to apply October 8, 2008, the filing date of the Application, as the priority
`
`date.
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’646 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`21.
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`22.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF ACCELEROMETERS
`24. Modern day compact commercial accelerometers are typically small
`
`micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) that may be fabricated into an
`
`integrated circuit. (See Rakkola, [0004]). A common type of accelerometer is a
`
`triaxial accelerometer that measures acceleration along three different orthogonal
`
`axes. A triaxial accelerometer at rest will measure acceleration due to the force of
`
`gravity along at least one axis. A triaxial accelerometer in motion will measure
`
`both acceleration due to the force of gravity and acceleration due to any movement
`
`being experienced by the accelerometer. (See Pasolini, 3:4-7). However, for many
`
`applications it is desirable to distinguish between static acceleration (due to the
`
`force of gravity) and dynamic acceleration (due to motion).
`
`25. Various techniques for distinguishing between static acceleration and
`
`dynamic acceleration were used and known to persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the filing of the ’646 patent. For example, Pasolini uses low pass filters to
`
`create a representation of gravity along each axis. The signals from the low pass
`
`filters, which represent gravity, can then be subtracted from the current
`
`acceleration values measured by the accelerometer. (See Pasolini, 4:38-50). Thus,
`
`the result of such subtraction is representative of the dynamic acceleration.
`
`Goldman describes a system that samples the accelerometer while at rest to obtain
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`a rest value. Then, Goldman’s system uses that value for comparison with the
`
`currently measured acceleration. (See Goldman, p. 2).
`
`V. THE ’646 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’646 Patent
`26. The ’646 patent relates to a method and system for waking a device
`
`from an idle state in response to detecting motion. Specifically, the ’646 patent
`
`describes a device that goes into an idle mode after a period of inactivity. The
`
`device also has a motion sensor to detect motion. In response to detecting motion,
`
`the device will wake from such idle states.
`
`Alleged Problem
`
`1.
`27. According to the background section of the ’646 patent: “Continuous
`
`improvements have allowed the users to enjoy many features and possible uses
`
`from a single mobile device.” (‘646 Specification, 1:14-16). The specification
`
`continues: “However, generally, the more applications a mobile device has, the
`
`faster the battery of the mobile device depletes. (‘646 Specification, 1:16-17). As is
`
`well known to POSITAs, electronic devices typically enter a low power state after
`
`a period of inactivity to conserve power. However, it is desirable for the device to
`
`quickly get back into an operable state when the user is ready to use the device.
`
`“Therefore, it can be difficult to maximize battery life and provide a great user
`
`experience at the same time.” (‘646 Specification, 1:17-18).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’646 Patent
`
`2.
`28. The ’646 patent relates to a method and system for waking a device
`
`from a low power state in response to detecting motion. Specifically, the ’646
`
`patent describes a device that goes into a low power state after a period of
`
`inactivity. The device also has a motion sensor to detect motion. In response to
`
`detecting motion, the device will “wake” from the low power state.
`
`29. More specifically, the claimed invention uses a motion sensor to
`
`collect a sample value while the device is at rest. This sample value is referred to
`
`as the “idle sample value.”1 The claimed invention also wakes the device from idle
`
`mode when it is determined that the device experiences motion along a “dominant
`
`axis.” The claims define the dominant axis as the axis most affected by gravity.
`
`However, use of the term “dominant axis” brings a superficial aura of complexity
`
`to the claims because any triaxial system has an axis that is more aligned with
`
`gravity than the others at a given time. It is noted that the claims do not require
`
`determining which of three axes is the dominant axis. Moreover, during
`
`
`
`1 Claim 1 only recites that the idle sample value is obtained. No use for the idle
`
`sample value is recited in the independent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`prosecution of the ’646 patent, the Examiner was not persuaded by the Applicant’s
`
`patentability arguments for the dominant axis.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’646 Patent
`
`B.
`30. The ’646 patent issued on October 28, 2014 from U.S Patent
`
`Application No. 12/247,950 filed October 8, 2008.
`
`31. The Office issued the first Action on May 12, 2011. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 106). In that Action, the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. Specifically, the terms “long average”
`
`and “dominant axis” were deemed indefinite. Additionally, independent claim 1
`
`was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Rakkola (U.S.
`
`2006/0161377), and independent claims 25 and 33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 as being rendered obvious by Rakkola and Mattice (U.S. 2007/0259716). In
`
`response to the first Action, the Applicant argued that the term “dominant axis”
`
`was defined in the specification as “the axis most impacted by gravity” and
`
`therefore was not indefinite. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 149). Additionally, the
`
`Applicant argued that the term “long average” was defined in the specification as
`
`“averaging of a plurality of acceleration measurements over the sample period”
`
`and therefore was not indefinite. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 148). The
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`Applicant also challenged the anticipation and obvious rejections for the
`
`independent claims without amendments. Specifically, Applicant argued that:
`
`The reference levels are calculated in this way for each of the three
`axes, assuming that a triaxial accelerometer is used. (Rakkola,
`paragraph 19). Rakkola concludes "The reference levels are set
`without regard to device orientation of the direction of gravity, and so
`setting of
`these reference
`levels is greatly streamlined, with
`corresponding reduction of power requirements." (Rakkola, paragraph
`20). Therefore, Rakkola specifically teaches away from "determining
`an idle sample value for a dominant axis of a device," since no such
`calculation is needed.
`(‘646 Prosecution History, at pp. 149-50).
`32. Similar arguments were made regularly throughout prosecution but
`
`were never persuasive to the Office.
`
`33. The Office issued a second Action on October 20, 2011 that
`
`maintained the rejections of the first Action. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 175).
`
`Specifically, the Action stated that the Applicant’s arguments relied on features
`
`from the specification that were not found within the claims. In response to the
`
`second Office Action, the Applicant then amended the claims to define the
`
`dominant axis as the axis with the largest effect from gravity, as well as some other
`
`amendments related to motion data, and made arguments similar to those made in
`
`the response to the first Office Action. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 214).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`34. The Office then issued a third Action on January 26, 2012. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 230). The Action maintained the 112 rejection for the term
`
`“long average” but removed the rejection for the term “dominant axis” in light of
`
`Applicant’s amendments. The third Action also added U.S. Patent No. 7,987,070
`
`(“Kahn”) to the combination of Rakkola and Mattice for the 103 rejection. In
`
`response to the third Action, the Applicant noted that Kahn was commonly owned
`
`by the Applicant and excluded as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(c). (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 265).
`
`35. The Office issued a fourth Action on June 21, 2012. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 280). The Office made indefiniteness rejections under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112 related to the terms “long average” as indefinite and the term “axis
`
`most affected by gravity” as both indefinite and lacking written description.
`
`Furthermore, the Action rejected all independent claims using Rakkola and Mattice
`
`without Kahn. In response to the fourth Action, Applicant made nominal
`
`amendments and made similar arguments to those made previously. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 318).
`
`36. The Office issued a fifth Action on November 6, 2012. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 363). The Office kept the indefiniteness rejection for the term
`
`“long average” but did not maintain the rejection for the term “axis most affected
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,872,646
`
`by gravity.” The Office was not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments regarding the
`
`103 rejection and thus the 103 rejection was maintained. In response to this
`
`rejection, the Applicant made nominal amendments and maintained arguments
`
`against the combination of Rakkola and Mattice. (See ‘646 Prosecution History,
`
`402).
`
`37. The Office issued a sixth Action on February 26, 2013. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 412). The Office maintained the 112 rejection and the 103
`
`rejection. In response, the Applicant made nominal amendments and maintained
`
`similar arguments against the combination of Rakkola and Mattice. The Applicant
`
`also further defined the term “long average” to address the 112 rejection. (See ‘646
`
`Prosecution History, 485).
`
`38. The Office issued a seventh Action on June 5, 2013 that maintained
`
`the 103 rejection with Rakkola and Mattice. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 495).
`
`In response, the Applicant amended claim 1 to include the phrase “determining
`
`whether the motion caused a change in the dominant axis” and made similar
`
`amendments to the other independent claims. (See ‘646 Prosecution History, 988).
`
`39. After receiving Applicant’s response, there was an Examiner’s
`
`amendment that added the phrases “verifying whether the motion data includes one
`
`or more glitches and removing the one or more glitches from the motion data” and
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 89
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket