throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC Luxembourg S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Declaration of Joseph A. Paradiso, PhD
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Page 1 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 2
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 8
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 9
`
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................ 10
`
`B. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 10
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’902 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`
`A. Summary of the ’902 Patent .................................................................. 11
`
`B. Prosecution History of the ’902 Patent .................................................. 14
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ................................... 14
`
`A. “dominant axis” ..................................................................................... 15
`
`B. “cadence window” ................................................................................. 16
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 16
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 2 ................................................................ 16
`
`1. Summary of Mitchnick .................................................................. 16
`
`2. Mitchnick’s Embodiments Are Combinable ................................. 18
`
`3. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 19
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claim 3 ........................................................................... 29
`
`1. Summary of Sheldon ...................................................................... 29
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Mitchnick and Sheldon ................................ 29
`
`3. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 32
`
`C. Challenge #3: Claim 4 ........................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`1. Summary of Tanenhaus .................................................................. 43
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Mitchnick, Sheldon, Tanenhaus .................. 43
`
`3. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 46
`
`D. Challenge #4: Claims 5-6 and 9-10 ....................................................... 52
`
`1. State of the Art at the Time of the ’902 Patent .............................. 52
`
`2. Summary of Fabio .......................................................................... 54
`
`3. Summary of Pasolini ...................................................................... 57
`
`4. Reasons to Combine Fabio and Pasolini ........................................ 60
`
`5. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................... 63
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................101
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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. 7,881,902 (“the ’902 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-
`
`6 and 9-10 of the ’902 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 1-6 and 9-10 would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The ’902 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`The prosecution history of the ’902 Patent, Ex. 1002;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”),
`
`Ex. 1005;
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`d)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”), Ex.
`
`1006;
`
`e)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0084848 to Mitchnick
`
`(“Mitchnick”), Ex. 1007;
`
`f)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,469,639 to Tanenhaus et al. (“Tanenhaus”),
`
`Ex. 1008; and
`
`g)
`
`U. S. Patent No. 5,957,957 to Sheldon (“Sheldon”), Ex. 1009.
`
`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 MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical systems) devices
`
`and body motion sensing systems, 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 Ex. 1004. 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
`
`twenty years of experience in wearable devices and computing, during which I
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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 a
`
`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 I 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
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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
`
`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 from the 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 Media 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`curricula. Many of these publications are directed to wearables. I have also advised
`
`over 55 graduate (M.S. and Ph.D) 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
`
`prominence in their own careers that have involved wearables—for example, Dr.
`
`Nan-Wei Gong (Ph.D 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 (Ph.D 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),
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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
`
`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 ’902 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`III. 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 ’902 Patent was filed. I have been informed by
`
`Apple’s counsel that the earliest alleged priority date for the ’902 Patent is
`
`December 22, 2006. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’902 Patent, a
`
`POSITA would be someone knowledgeable concerning accelerometers and the
`
`analysis of the data generated thereby. That person would have (i) a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent training, as well as (ii) approximately two years of experience
`
`working in hardware and/or software design and development related to MEMS
`
`devices and body motion sensing systems. 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`understood at the time. Based on this criteria, as of the relevant time frame for
`
`the ’902 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 ’902 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 December
`
`22, 2006. 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
`
`’902 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’902 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’902 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`asked to apply December 22, 2006, the earliest alleged priority date, as the priority
`
`date.
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’902 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`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
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`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.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’902 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’902 Patent
`
`24. The ’902 patent is directed to an electronic device that “may be used
`
`to count steps or other periodic human motions.” Ex. 1001, 2:29-30. To detect
`
`periodic human motions, the electronic device “includes one or more inertial
`
`sensors,” such as an accelerometer. Ex. 1001, 2:25-26, 1:18. The inertial sensor
`
`measures acceleration data to detect a motion cycle. Ex. 1001, 2:38-43, 3:47-48.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`The ’902 patent explains that the “period and/or cadence of the motion cycle may
`
`be based upon user activity,” such as rollerblading, biking, running, walking, or
`
`any other activity having a periodic set of repeated movements. Ex. 1001, 3:16-17,
`
`3:36-38.
`
`25. To reduce power consumption, the electronic device in the ’902 patent
`
`operates in different modes. Ex. 1001, 8:20-23. As recited in claims 1-4, one of
`
`these modes is a “sleep mode.” The “sleep mode” in the ’902 patent is described as
`
`a power level that “reduces power consumption and prolongs battery life.” Ex.
`
`1001, 8:66-67. The electronic device enters the sleep mode when “no relevant
`
`acceleration is detected.” Ex. 1001, 10:41-41. While in the sleep mode, “a
`
`sampling function is periodically executed,” where the function “samples
`
`acceleration data at a set sampling rate for a set time period.” Ex. 1001, 9:5-9. The
`
`device terminates the sleep mode “[w]hen acceleration is detected.” Ex. 1001,
`
`9:39-41.
`
`26. Claims 5-6 and 9-10 differ from claims 1-4 in that they are not related
`
`to the sleep mode, but instead are directed to determining a step cadence window
`
`“used to count steps.” Ex. 1001, 4:21-22. According to the ’902 patent, a cadence
`
`window “is a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to
`
`detect a new step.” Ex. 1001, 3:66-4:1. The ’902 patent describes how “[i]f fewer
`
`than the required number of steps” are detected, “the cadence window may have a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`default minimum and maximum value.” Ex. 1001, 4:63-66. However, “[o]nce
`
`enough steps have been detected to determine a dynamic stepping cadence or
`
`period,” the dynamic cadence window “continuously updates as a user’s cadence
`
`changes.” Ex. 1001, 5:1-2, 4:24-26.
`
`27. Claim 10 of the ’902 Patent is further directed to assigning a dominant
`
`axis based on the orientation” of the mobile device with respect to gravity. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 10. In the ’902 Patent, the dominant axis is “the axis most
`
`influenced by gravity,” which “may change over time (e.g. as the electronic device
`
`is rotated).” Ex. 1001, 6:16-21. Figure 9 of the ’902 Patent, reproduced below in
`
`part, provides a method for assigning a dominant axis based on taking
`
`measurements of acceleration data:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 9.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`28. The “cadence window” and the “dominant axis” concepts claimed in
`
`the ’902 Patent were not novel. As shown in this Declaration, (1) U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”) describes a validation interval (cadence
`
`window) that is a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to
`
`detect a new step and (2) both Fabio and U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio
`
`Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”) describe detecting steps using a dominant axis of a tri-
`
`axial accelerometer, or, in other words, using the axis most influenced by gravity.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’902 Patent
`
`29. The ’902 patent issued on February 1, 2011 from the U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/694,135 filed January 26, 2010. The ’902 patent is a
`
`continuation of the U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508, filed on December 22, 2006.
`
`30. The first action by the Office during prosecution was a Notice of
`
`Allowance that issued on September 24, 2010. Ex. 1002, p. 34.
`
`31.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance the Examiner stated that the cited art (not
`
`included in this petition) failed to teach or suggest the limitations of original claim
`
`12 (issued claim 1) and original claim 25 (issued claim 5). Ex. 1002, p.5.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’902
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. It is my further
`
`understanding that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor has
`
`set forth a special meaning for a term. In order to construe the following claim
`
`terms, I have reviewed the entirety of the ’902 Patent, as well as its prosecution
`
`history.
`
`A.
`
`“dominant axis”
`
`33. This term appears in at least claim 10. In the’902 specification, the
`
`dominant axis is determined based on the accelerometer’s alignment with gravity.
`
`For example, the specification states that “[i]n one embodiment, the dominant axis
`
`is assigned after identifying a gravitational influence. The gravitational influence
`
`may be identified by calculating total acceleration based upon the acceleration on
`
`each axis.” Ex. 1001, 14:34-38. The specification also states that “[i]n one
`
`embodiment, once the orientation is determined, a dominant axis is assigned based
`
`upon the orientation. Determining an orientation of the electronic device 100 may
`
`include identifying a gravitational influence.” Ex. 1001, 6:13-16. In other words,
`
`the dominant axis is “the axis most influenced by gravity, which may change over
`
`time (e.g., as the electronic device is rotated).” Ex. 1001, 6:17-19.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`34. Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “dominant axis” as
`
`used in the claims includes “the axis most influenced by gravity.”
`
`B.
`
`“cadence window”
`
`35. This term appears in at least claim 5. The ’902 specification
`
`specifically defines this term as “a window of time since a last step was counted
`
`that is looked at to detect a new step.” Ex. 1001, 3:66-4:1.
`
`36. Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “cadence window”
`
`as used in the claims includes “a window of time since a last step was counted that
`
`is looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 2
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1 and 2 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0084848 to Mitchnick (“Mitchnick”).
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Mitchnick
`
`38. Mitchnick is directed to a monitoring device “for automatically
`
`monitoring participants.” Ex. 1007, ¶9. The monitoring device can reside “in or on
`
`the body.” Ex. 1007, ¶43.
`
`39. Mitchnick describes that to monitor participants, monitoring device
`
`includes an inertial sensor, such as a “MEMS-based accelerometer.” Ex. 1007, ¶55.
`
`The accelerometer “can measure positive and negative accelerations.” Ex. 1007,
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`¶55. Mitchnick explains that the monitoring device can detect an activity of a
`
`participant “by observing characteristic patterns of participant motion as sensed by
`
`an acceleration.” Ex. 1007, ¶12. For example, to identify whether an activity is
`
`occurring, the monitoring device “compares observed characteristics” of an
`
`acceleration signal “to a template indicating ranges of characteristics likely to
`
`indicate” the activity. Ex. 1007, ¶70. The monitoring device then determines that
`
`the “activity is likely if the observed characteristics match the template.” Ex. 1007,
`
`¶70.
`
`40.
`
` Mitchnick also describes how the monitoring device includes a “low-
`
`voltage, low-power micro-controller (MC) 31 in order to minimize device count,
`
`size, and power consumption.” Ex. 1007, ¶50. The minimized power consumption
`
`allows the monitoring device to function “for extended periods, e.g., weeks, a
`
`month, or several months, or up to a year or more.” Ex. 1007, ¶11. Mitchnick uses
`
`this power consumption mode because the monitored “activity is intermittent” and
`
`“power and memory can be advantageously further conserved, and device life
`
`further extended, by only intermittently sampling 75” for the activity. Ex. 1007,
`
`¶69. Mitchnick further explains that “when the device is neither sampling for
`
`sexual activity nor storing monitoring data, it enters a low-power sleep state.” Ex.
`
`1007, ¶72.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`41. Mitchnick more specifically describes that “[p]rior to entering this
`
`sleep state, the MC controls power control 45 to power down external components
`
`not necessary for its subsequent wake-up.” Ex. 1007, ¶72. In Mitchnick, “[o]nly
`
`the MC and a wake-up circuit need to be powered.” Ex. 1007, ¶68. Upon entering
`
`the sleep state, the MC “loads the sampling interval into an MC timer, and then
`
`executes a SLEEP instruction.” Ex. 1007, ¶72. When the timer expires, “the
`
`SLEEP instruction completes, and the device again checks for sexual activity.” Ex.
`
`1007, ¶72. If the activity is not detected, “the device remains in a low-power sleep
`
`state.” Ex. 1007, ¶69. Otherwise, the monitoring device enters into a “normal
`
`operation mode” where the “the device proceeds to repetitively retrieve sensor data
`
`77 and store retrieved data in memory.” Ex. 1007, ¶¶50, 72.
`
`42.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-4 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0084848 to Mitchnick (“Mitchnick”)
`
`2. Mitchnick’s Embodiments Are Combinable
`
`43. Mitchnick’s disclosure is primarily directed to a monitoring device
`
`that operates inside a body cavity. Ex. 1007, ¶11. For example, Mitchnick
`
`describes the accelerometer and power management functionality included in a
`
`monitoring device “designed to be affixed to or reside in a cavity of, a participant.”
`
`Ex. 1007, ¶11. A POSITA would have recognized that Mitchnick’s internal
`
`embodiment could be performed by an external device attached to a body. In fact,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`Mitchnick states that its device can reside elsewhere “on the body” in order to
`
`detect “other parameters of medical/clinical interest.” Ex. 1007, ¶43.
`
`44. A POSITA would have recognized the benefits of modifying
`
`Mitchnick’s internal device to reside on the body, and not in the body cavity. For
`
`example, an external version of the monitoring device—that resides on the body—
`
`can be placed and removed by a user, rather than inserted by a medical
`
`professional. This would allow such a device to be more widely distributed to both
`
`male and female patients, particularly in less developed areas as medical
`
`intervention would not be required to begin use. In this way, Mitchnick’s external
`
`version would be useful to detect user activities pertaining to other areas of
`
`medical interest, which a POSITA would understand to include walking or
`
`running, following medical issues and procedures such as, a heart attack or a knee
`
`surgery. An external version of the device also has the benefit of being shared
`
`hygienically by numerous users, potentially reducing overall cost of use by
`
`allowing devices to be reused by various patients for various types of monitoring.
`
`Thus, given Mitchnick’s express teachings, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to implement internal embodiment as an external version that resides on
`
`the human body.
`
`3.
`
`Detailed Analysis
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 104
`
`

`

`Paradiso Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,881,902
`
`45. The following analysis describes how Mitchnick renders obvious
`
`claims 1 and 2 of the ’902 Patent.
`
`US 7,881,902
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] A method
`comprising:
`
`Mitchnick
`
`To the extent that this preamble is limiting, Mitchnick
`discloses it.
`Mitchnick discloses this limitation because it teaches a
`method that describes using acceleration measurements to
`monitor activity of a user:
`
`invention
`this
`In a ninth embodiment,
`includes a computer readable memory with a
`program for performing the methods of this
`invention. An
`aspect of
`the ninth
`that the
`embodiment further comprises
`method comprises awakening periodically
`from a low power sleep state in order to
`determine
`from
`acceleration
`measurements whether or not the subject
`is likely to be engaging in sexual activity,
`retrieving measurements from at least one
`sensor
`and
`storing

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