`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, AND HTC AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S. A.1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`PATENT 8,712,723
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`THE ’723 PATENT .................................................................................. 1
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 2
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 3
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................................................................... 4
`A.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................... 4
`1.
`“dominant axis” .................................................................... 5
`2.
`“cadence window” ................................................................ 9
`3.
`“logic” terms ......................................................................... 9
`The Pasolini Reference Was Already Considered by the
`USPTO .......................................................................................... 14
`The Applied References Fail to Disclose a “Cadence
`Window” ....................................................................................... 15
`The Applied References Fail to Disclose Detected
`Motions “Within a Cadence Windows” ........................................ 19
`The Applied References Fail to Disclose an Update to
`the Cadence Window as “Actual Cadence” or
`“Cadence” Changes ...................................................................... 20
`The Applied References Fail to “Assigning a Dominant
`axis with Respect to Gravity Based on an Orientation of
`the Inertial Sensor” ....................................................................... 20
`The Applied References Fail to Disclose “Detecting a
`Change in the Orientation of the Inertial Sensor and
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`H.
`
`Updating the Dominant Axis Based on the Change” ................... 27
`The Applied Reference Fail to Disclose Challenged
`Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11-13, and 15-18. ............................ 30
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 30
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 31
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Declaration of William C. Easttom (previously filed)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC ( “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Response to
`
`Petition IPR2018-014582 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”) of United
`
`States Patent No. 8,712,723 (“the ’723 patent” or “EX1001”) filed by LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”). The
`
`instant Petition is procedurally and substantively defective for at least the reasons
`
`set forth herein.
`
`II. THE ’723 PATENT
`
`The ’723 patent is titled “Human activity monitoring device.” The ʼ723 patent
`
`issued April 29, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/018,321 filed January
`
`31, 2011.
`
`The inventors of the ’723 patent observed that, at the time, step counting
`
`devices that utilize an inertial sensor to measure motion to detect steps generally
`
`required the user to first position the device in a limited set of orientations. In some
`
`devices, the required orientations are dictated to the user by the device. In other
`
`devices, the beginning orientation is not critical, so long as this orientation can be
`
`
`
` 2
`
` The instant Petition and Petitioners seek joinder to IPR2018-00389. See Paper 10.
`Furthermore, as Petitioners state, the instant Petition is a “carbon copy” of the
`original petition in IPR2018-00389. Id., at 1.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`maintained. EX1001, 1:29-34. Further, the inventors observed that devices at the
`
`time were often confused by motion noise experienced by the device throughout a
`
`user's daily routine. The noise would cause false steps to be measured and actual
`
`steps to be missed in conventional step counting devices. Conventional step counting
`
`devices also failed to accurately measure steps for individuals who walk at a slow
`
`pace. Id., 1:35-40. Accordingly, the inventors introduced determining a rhythmic
`
`cadence and a correspondence cadence window concept that could anticipate when
`
`an expected periodic user activity is expected to occur. Id., 3:46-4:4.
`
`According to the invention of the ’723 Patent, a device to monitor human
`
`activity using an inertial sensor assigns a dominant axis after determining the
`
`orientation of an inertial sensor. The orientation of the inertial sensor is continuously
`
`determined, and the dominant axis is updated as the orientation of the inertial sensor
`
`changes. Id., 2:14-19. Periodic user activity in a cadence window is counted and the
`
`cadence is updated. Id., 3:46-4:4.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are currently pending cases concerning U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 8,712,723 (EX1001).
`
`Case Caption
`
`Case Number
`
`District Case Filed
`
`2
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`Apple Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. LG
`Electronics USA, Inc. et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. HTC
`America, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple
`Inc.
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc
`Luxembourg SA et al
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v. LG
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al
`Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. et al v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`TXED
`
`June 30, 2017
`
`2-17-cv-00522
`
`2-17-cv-00650
`
`TXED
`
`Sept. 15,
`2017
`
`4-17-cv-00832
`
`TXND Oct. 13, 2017
`
`2-17-cv-01629 WAWD Nov. 1, 2017
`
`2-17-cv-00737
`
`TXED Nov. 9, 2017
`
`IPR2018-00389
`
`PTAB Dec. 22, 2017
`
`4-18-cv-00364
`
`CAND
`
`Jan. 17, 2018
`
`IPR2018-01027
`
`PTAB
`
`5/4/2018
`
`4-18-cv-02918
`
`CAND
`
`5/17/2018
`
`IPR2018-01757
`
`PTAB
`
`9/18/2018
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
` The Petition alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would include someone who had, at the priority date of the ‘723 Patent (i) a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and/or
`
`Computer Science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of
`
`experience working in hardware and/or software design and development related to
`
`MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical) devices and body motion sensing systems.
`
`Mr. Easttom disagrees with the definition of POSITA offered in the Petition,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`specifically, instead of requiring two years of experience in working in “hardware
`
`and/or software design and development related to MEMS (micro-electro-
`
`mechanical) devices and body motion sensing systems”, Mr. Easttom specifies two
`
`years of experience “related to accelerometers or similar devices.” EX2001, ¶ 13.
`
`Mr. Easttom, however, recognizes that the difference is inconsequential to the
`
`dispute here. Regardless of which definition the Board adopts, Mr. Easttom is
`
`sufficiently qualified in the pertinent art. Id., ¶ 3.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Petitioners have the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.108(c) (“review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability
`
`unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged . . . is unpatentable”). The Petition fails to meet this burden.
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`4
`
`Fabio3 and Pasolini.4
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
` EX1006, U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097
`4 EX1005, U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`As explained below, Petitioners base their patentability challenges on
`
`erroneous constructions, which provides an independent and fully-dispositive basis
`
`to deny the Petition in its entirety. See Mentor Graphics Corp., v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00287, 2015 WL 3637569, (Paper 31) at *11 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2015),
`
`aff'd sub nom. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 669 Fed. Appx. 569 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (finding Petitioner’s claim construction unreasonable in light of the
`
`specification, and therefore, denying Petition as tainted by reliance on an incorrect
`
`claim construction).
`
`1.
`
`“dominant axis”
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction violates the well-established rule against
`
`reading limitations from the specification into the claim language. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). Importing
`
`teachings from the specification, Petitioners seek to limit the claim term “dominant
`
`axis” to mean “the axis most influenced by gravity”. Pet. 9. However, the teachings
`
`of the specification cited by Petitioners clearly state that they are only example
`
`embodiments and are not meant to be limiting. See e.g., Pet. 10-11 quoting EX1001,
`
`14:37-41 (“[i]n one embodiment…”) (emphasis added). The specification
`
`specifically anticipates that multiple different types of activities may avail from the
`
`disclosure, some of which will not use gravity as the dominant axis. FIGURE 2 is
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`but one example of selecting one of three axis measurements that will be the
`
`“dominant axis” for determining a periodic movement and corresponding cadence.
`
`Each axis has the effect of gravity; however, one is dominant due to the particular
`
`activity encountered.
`
`Petitioners expressly acknowledge that the ’723 Patent specifically provides
`
`for different ways to determine the “dominant axis” in other embodiments. For
`
`example, in one embodiment, the “dominant axis” is determined by orientation of
`
`the device. See EX1001, 6:15-29. And here, while the orientation “may include
`
`identifying a gravitational influence…” (EX1001, 6:21-23) (emphasis added), by
`
`definition, that means the “dominant axis” is not limited to just gravitational
`
`influence.
`
`As a further example, in the same section, the specification also states that
`
`“[t]herefore, a new dominant axis may be assigned when the orientation of the
`
`electronic device 100 and/or the inertial sensor(s) attached to or embedded in the
`
`electronic device 100 changes.” Id., 6:26-29 (emphasis added). Thus, the
`
`specification recites yet another example of a different way to determine the
`
`“dominant axis”. Another non-limiting example from the specification states: “[i]n
`
`one embodiment, the dominant axis corresponds to a virtual axis that is a
`
`component of a virtual coordinate system.” Id., 6:35-37 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction would impermissibly exclude preferred
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`embodiments, and should be rejected. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1584–85, (Fed.Cir.1996) (a construction that reads out the preferred
`
`embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
`
`evidentiary support).
`
`In IPR2018-00389, the Institution Decision further supports rejecting
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. While the Institution Decision in IPR2018-
`
`00389 states that the specification purportedly “supports Petitioner’s proposal”
`
`(IPR2018-00389, Paper 7 at 9), in fact the example cited by the Institution Decision
`
`in
`
`IPR2018-00389 supports rejecting Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`Specifically, the Institution Decision in IPR2018-00389 cites to the specification for
`
`stating: “[i]n alternative embodiments, the dominant axis does not correspond to
`
`one of the actual axes of the inertial sensor(s) in a current orientation, but rather to
`
`an axis that is defined as approximately aligned to gravity”. IPR2018-00389, Paper
`
`7 at 9-10 citing EX1001, 6:32-35 (emphasis added). The above recitation merely
`
`confirms Petitioners’ proposed construction is one of numerous alternative
`
`embodiments, and therefore it confirms that Petitioners’ proposed construction
`
`would impermissibly exclude preferred embodiments, and should be rejected.
`
`Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584–85. The fact that the specification supports one of many
`
`alternative embodiments is both unsurprising and insignificant.
`
`Further, the Institution Decision in IPR2018-00389 points to the claim
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`language as allegedly “expressly requires the assignment of the dominant axis based
`
`on gravity.” IPR2018-00389, Paper 7 at 10. There, however, the Board is mistaken.
`
`The claim language merely requires that the dominant axis be assigned “with respect
`
`to gravity”, for example, Claim 1 in relevant part recites: “assigning a dominant axis
`
`with respect to gravity based on an orientation of the inertial sensor”. The claim
`
`language does not “expressly require [] the assignment of the dominant axis based
`
`on gravity” as the Institution Decision in IPR2018-00389 states, instead it merely
`
`requires assigning a dominant axis and providing gravity as a point of reference.
`
`According to the claim language, the dominant axis may be assigned with
`
`respect to gravity in the sense that the dominant axis is orthogonal to gravity, or
`
`opposing gravity, or in any configuration with respect to gravity. The claim
`
`language certainly doesn’t require assigning the dominant axis to be aligned with
`
`gravity, or be the axis “most influenced by gravity” as Petitioners propose.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction would
`
`impermissibly exclude preferred
`
`embodiments, and should be rejected. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584–85.
`
`Petitioners have not and cannot establish prima facie obviousness through
`
`application of an incorrect construction. See Mentor Graphics, IPR2014-00287,
`
`2015 WL 3637569, (Paper 31) at *11 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2015), aff'd sub nom.
`
`Synopsys, 669 Fed. Appx. 569. In any event, Petitioners fail to present a case of
`
`prima facie obviousness even under its own construction.
`
`8
`
`
`
`2.
`
` “cadence window”
`
`The Institution Decision in IPR2018-00389 indicates that this term does not
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`need construction. See IPR2018-00389, Paper 7 at 10. However, as discussed below
`
`in the context of the claims, both “cadence” and “cadence window” as used in the
`
`claims have particular meaning. That meaning is ignored by the Petitioners.
`
`3.
`
`“logic” terms
`
`The Institution Decision in IPR2018-00389 determined that “the presumption
`
`against application of § 112 ¶ 6 has not been overcome, and that no construction is
`
`necessary”. IPR2018-00389, Paper 7 at 8. However, Patent Owner addresses each
`
`of Petitioners’ proposed constructions for the “logic” terms below.
`
`a)
`
`“a dominant axis logic to determine an orientation of
`a device with respect to gravity, to assign a dominant
`axis, and to update the dominant axis when the
`orientation of the device changes”
`The recitation “a dominant axis logic to determine an orientation of a device
`with respect to gravity, to assign a dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis
`when the orientation of the device changes” is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),
`and no construction of this phrase is necessary. The claim language provides its own
`definition, as evidenced by Petitioners’ proposed definition, which repeats the claim
`language verbatim with the exceptions that (1) Petitioner substitutes the phrase
`“dominant axis logic” with the phrase “hardware, software, or both” and (2)
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`Petitioner deletes, without explanation, the phrase “with respect to gravity”.
`Petitioners’ revisions serve no purpose, impermissibly omit limiting claim
`language, and only inject ambiguity. Here, the claim language itself provides
`definitional context for the “dominant axis logic” by reciting that it “determine[s]
`an orientation of a device with respect to gravity, to assign a dominant axis, and to
`update the dominant axis when the orientation of the device changes”.
`Petitioners’ proposed construction of the word “logic” itself leaves it unclear
`if Petitioners are seeking to exclude things like firmware or Field-Programmable
`Gate Arrays. And Petitioners’ proposed substitution of “dominant axis logic” with
`“hardware, software, or both” injects ambiguity by reducing claim language to
`virtually anything within the universe of hardware and/or software. Moreover, a
`POSITA would understand that such a determination cannot be done in software
`alone, as permitted by Petitioners’ unreasonably broad construction. Rather, the
`determination, at a minimum, must require some form of hardware, such as an
`accelerometer. See EX2001, ¶7.
`Finally, the Petition does not expressly contend that this claim term is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),5 and Patent Owner contends that it is not. For at
`
`
`
` 5
`
` The Petition merely muses “However, to the extent Patent Owner overcomes the
`presumption against construction under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph…” Pet. 12.
`But Petitioners provide no authority or evidence for its alleged “presumption” or its
`implicit shifting of its burden of proof. Nowhere do Petitioners contend the term is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and the Board should give no weight to Petitioners’
`conjectures.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`least those reasons, Patent Owner does not address 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) or Petitioners’
`hypotheticals.
`
`b)
`
`“a counting logic to count periodic human motions by
`monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis
`by counting the periodic human motions when
`accelerations showing a motion cycle that meets
`motion criteria is detected within a cadence window”
`The Petition takes the same erroneous approach to the term “counting logic”
`that it does with the “dominant axis logic” term addressed in the preceding section
`above. Accordingly, the proposed construction in the Petition should be rejected for
`analogous reasons, which are repeated below for completeness and clarity.
`Uniloc submits that “counting logic” is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),
`and no construction is necessary. The claim language provides its own definition,
`as evidenced by Petitioners’ proposed definition, which repeats the claim language
`verbatim with the exception that Petitioner substitutes the term “counting logic”
`with the phrase “hardware, software, or both”.
`Petitioners’ revisions serve no purpose, impermissibly omit limiting claim
`language, and only inject ambiguity. Here, the claim language itself provides
`definitional context for the “counting logic” by reciting that it “count[s] periodic
`human motions by monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis by
`counting the periodic human motions when accelerations showing a motion cycle
`that meets motion criteria is detected within a cadence window”.
`Petitioners’ proposed construction of the word “logic” itself leaves it unclear
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`if Petitioners are seeking to exclude things like firmware or Field-Programmable
`Gate Arrays. And Petitioners’ proposed substitution of “counting logic” with
`“hardware, software, or both” injects ambiguity by reducing claim language to
`virtually anything within the universe of hardware and/or software. Moreover, a
`POSITA would understand that such a determination cannot be done in software
`alone, as permitted by Petitioners’ unreasonably broad construction. Rather, the
`determination, at a minimum, must require some form of hardware, such as an
`accelerometer. See EX2001, ¶8.
`Finally, the Petition does not expressly contend that this claim term is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),6 and Patent Owner contends that it is not. For at
`least those reasons, Patent Owner does not address 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) or Petitioners’
`hypotheticals.
`
`c)
`
`“a cadence logic to update the cadence window as
`actual cadence changes”
`The Petition takes the same erroneous approach to the term “cadence logic”
`that it does with the “dominant axis logic” and “counting logic” terms addressed
`above. Accordingly, the proposed construction in the Petition should be rejected for
`
`
`
` 6
`
` The Petition merely muses “However, to the extent Patent Owner overcomes the
`presumption against construction under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph…” Pet.14.
`But Petitioners provide no authority or evidence for its alleged “presumption” or its
`implicit shifting of its burden of proof. Nowhere do Petitioners contend the term is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and the Board should give no weight to Petitioners’
`conjectures.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`analogous reasons, which are repeated below for completeness and clarity.
`Uniloc submits that “cadence logic” is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),
`and no construction is necessary. The claim language provides its own definition,
`as evidenced by Petitioners’ proposed definition, which repeats the claim language
`verbatim with the exception that Petitioners’ substitute the term “cadence logic”
`with the phrase “hardware, software, or both”.
`Petitioners’ revisions serve no purpose, impermissibly omit limiting claim
`language, and only inject ambiguity. Here, the claim language itself provides
`definitional context for the “cadence logic” by reciting that it “update[s] the cadence
`window as actual cadence changes”.
`Petitioners’ proposed construction of the word “logic” itself leaves it unclear
`if Petitioners are seeking to exclude things like firmware or Field-Programmable
`Gate Arrays. And Petitioners’ proposed substitution of “cadence logic” with
`“hardware, software, or both” injects ambiguity by reducing claim language to
`virtually anything within the universe of hardware and/or software. Moreover, a
`POSITA would understand that such a determination cannot be done in software
`alone, as permitted by Petitioners’ unreasonably broad construction. Rather, the
`determination, at a minimum, must require some form of hardware to detect “actual
`cadence changes.”
`
`B.
`
`Finally, the Petition does not expressly contend that this claim
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),7 and Patent Owner
`contends that it is not. For at least those reasons, Patent Owner
`does not address 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) or Petitioners’
`hypotheticals.The Pasolini Reference Was Already Considered by
`the USPTO
`
`In its petition, Petitioners are silent in regards to whether U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”)(EX1005) was already considered by
`
`the Patent Office. An inspection of the Prosecution History (EX1002) reveals that it
`
`was, indeed, already considered. In particular, one of the applied references in the
`
`prosecution history of the ‘723 Patent was U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2007/0143068 (Pasolini), which is the printed publication version of the now applied
`
`
`
` 7
`
` The Petition merely muses “However, to the extent Patent Owner overcomes the
`presumption against construction under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph…” Pet. 15.
`But Petitioners provide no authority or evidence for its alleged “presumption” or its
`implicit shifting of its burden of proof. Nowhere do Petitioners contend the term is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and the Board should give no weight to Petitioners’
`conjectures.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Pasolini reference (Ex. 1005).
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`EX1005 at 1. Stated more succinctly, the exact same disclosure was already
`
`considered by the Patent Office in the prosecution of the ‘723 Patent.
`
`The following was one the of final substantive arguments made before the
`
`‘723 Patent was allowed:
`
`
`EX1002 at pg. 142 of 454 (Emphasis Added).
`C. The Applied References Fail to Disclose a “Cadence Window”
`
`Each of the challenged claims requires a “cadence window.” As recognized
`
`by the Examiner in the prosecution history of the ‘723 Patent, Pasolini (EX1005)
`
`fails to disclose such a cadence window. See EX1002 at 35-36 (indicating in notice
`
`of allowance that prior art fails to disclose the now-challenged claims). Likewise,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`the other Pasolini reference, Fabio (EX1006)8 also fails to disclose anything
`
`resembling such a cadence window.
`
`As explained in the ‘723 Specification, a “cadence window” corresponds to
`
`the time allowable for a particular motion to occur. See e.g., EX1001 at 3:9-17, 56-
`
`59; 3:64-6:6; 11:13-28; 12:45-50. To determine the “cadence” itself, motion criteria
`
`is examined to determine whether a motion cycle corresponds to a particular motion.
`
`See e.g., Id. at 3:18-32, 38-54; 6:65-7:14. The motion cycle itself is not limited to
`
`walking, but also can be any user activity having a periodic set of movements. Id.at
`
`3:43-44. Non-limiting examples include rollerblading, biking, running, and walking.
`
`Id. at 3:23-25. In one configuration, the cadence window is described as a rolling
`
`average of previous detected cycles. Id at 3:66-4:10. The independent claims must
`
`encompass such a “cadence window” being based on “rolling averages” because
`
`dependent claims (e.g., Claim 4 and 19) narrow the updating of the “cadence
`
`window” to being based on rolling averages.
`
`The Petition points to Fabio (EX1006)’s “validation interval TV” as allegedly
`
`corresponding to the claimed “cadence window.” See e.g., Petition at 35-37.
`
`
`
` 8
`
` The last name of the inventor is actually Pasolini; however, to maintain consistency
`with petitioners’ nomenclature, Fabio (the first name) is used. Both EX1005 and
`EX1006 share the same inventors and have the same filing dates.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`However, such a validation interval TV has nothing to do with a “cadence” or the
`
`claimed “cadence window.” Rather, Fabio (EX1006)’s validation interval TV is part
`
`of validation logic used in a pedometer. This TV logic simply validates whether the
`
`time between a current detected step and a prior detected step is within a 50%
`
`variance of an immediately preceding period. If so, the prior (but not the current
`
`step) is validated and counted. If not, the prior step is disregarded. This happens
`
`regardless of (a) the time interval between steps, (b) whether a false positive is
`
`detected, or (c) the time interval between other detected steps (e.g., steps preceding
`
`the immediate step). Such a concept cannot reasonably correspond to a “cadence” or
`
`“cadence window” as claimed, which can be based a rolling average of previous
`
`detected cycles.
`
`FIGURE 6 of Fabio (EX1006) is repeated below with annotations for values
`
`of TA and TB from Col. 4, lines 45-50 provided. The sum of TA and TB yield TV
`
`validation value.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`Following the red arrow, TA is ½ the prior measured difference in time between
`
`detected steps, or ½ DTK-1. Following the green arrow, TB is the prior measured
`
`time difference, DTK-1. Simplified, as recognized by Fabio, the validation amount is
`
`150% (or 3/2) of the prior measured time difference, DTK-1. (EX1006 at 4:50-52).
`
`Stated differently, only two inputs are used – current time difference and prior time
`
`difference. The current time must be within a 50% variance of the prior time. This
`
`TV logic is a backward looking in that the prior step is counted if the next step is
`
`within the 50% variance timewise of the prior step. The process can repeat for the
`
`next detected step with a similar look-back.
`
`Fabio (EX1006)’s discussion of validation logic mentions nothing of trying
`
`to figure out a cadence or considering whether a step occurs within a cadence
`
`window. One cannot reasonably dispute that even under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “cadence” and “cadence window” (in a manner consistent
`
`with the specification), one of ordinary skill in the art would not view a 50%
`
`validation check to a prior step as corresponding to a “cadence” or a “cadence
`
`window” for an activity, which looks to an expected rhythm of a cadence (e.g., that
`
`may be based on rolling averages) to determine a cadence window in which the next
`
`18
`
`
`
`step is expected to occur.
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`
`To further illustrate this point, according to Fabio (EX1006), an irregular
`
`very-short step may not only invalidate a prior regular step (e.g., because the time
`
`for the irregular step is not within the 50% variance), but also invalidate the very-
`
`short step itself on the next validation step (e.g., because the 50% validation is really
`
`small). Fabio explains that “[i] events and sequence of steps that are in any case too
`
`short are thus advantageously ignored” (EX1006, 5:56-57) and that “[s]tep
`
`sequences that are shorter and not very significant in relation to the activity
`
`performed can be ignored.” EX1006, 6:9-11. The problem with this approach is that
`
`a legitimate regular step is invalidated. This is because of Fabio (EX1006)’s inability
`
`to consider a cadence/cadence window and its interest in the timing between the
`
`current and prior steps only.
`
`D. The Applied References Fail to Disclose Detected Motions “Within
`a Cadence Windows”
`
`Assuming for the sake of argument that Fabio (EX1006)’s “validation interval
`
`TV” were a cadence window (which it is not), Fabio (EX1006) still does not disclose
`
`the claims because of its backward-looking validation. Fabio (EX1006)’s TV
`
`validation process uses a time period of a current step to determine whether a prior
`
`step is counted. However, the claims require counting with respective to steps
`
`“within a cadence window.” None of the counting in Fabio (EX1006) is with respect
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`to a step within the validation interval TV. Rather, the counted steps occur before
`
`the validation interval TV being examined.
`
`E.
`
`The Applied References Fail to Disclose an Update to the Cadence
`Window as “Actual Cadence” or “Cadence” Changes
`
` The challenged claims all recite an update to the cadence window as either
`
`an “actual cadence” or a “cadence” changes. The applied reference fail to disclose
`
`such an update. Fabio (EX1006)’s “validation interval TV” for a particular step
`
`considers only an immediately preceding step and time period and cannot account,
`
`for example, for a rolling average of previous detected cycles. One cannot
`
`reasonably dispute that a singular measurement by itself could not be considered a
`
`cadence change.
`
`To the extent Petitioners argues that “within” doesn’t actually mean “within,”
`
`Patent Owner directs the Board to the specification, for example, FIGURE 2 and its
`
`corresponding discussion in which counting of a step considers whether such a step
`
`is “within” its respective cadence window. There is no indication (and Petitioners
`
`have cited none) where a step is counted if another step falls within a different
`
`cadence window.
`
`F.
`
`The Applied References Fail to “Assigning a Dominant axis with
`Respect to Gravity Based on an Orientation of the Inertial
`Sensor”
`The Petitioners argue that the dominant axis must be vertical (direction of
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`U.S. Patent 8,712,723
`
`gravity) and hence, Polisnelli (EX1005)’s selection of the gravitational axis meets
`the claim features. However, the ‘723 Patent recognizes that multiple activities may
`occur and that the dominant axis may be other than vertical (gravity) – hence the
`reference to “dominant axis.” FIGURE 2 of the ‘723 Paten