`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`APPLE INCSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,881,902
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1010
`
`Page 1 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1 
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ....................................................... 32 
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 43 
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ................... 43 
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ902 PATENT .......................................................... 43 
`A.
`Summary of the Patent ........................................................................ 43 
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 54 
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 65 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 65 
`A.
`“dominant axis” .................................................................................. 76 
`B.
`“cadence window” .............................................................................. 87 
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. 87 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 97 
`A.
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 97 
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ....................................................... 98 
`C.
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Mitchnick ........................................................................ 108 
`
`IX.
`
`–ii–
`
`Page 2 of 86
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Summary of Mitchnick ........................................................... 108 
`1.
`2. Mitchnick’s embodiments are combinable ........................... 1110 
`3.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................. 1311 
`4.
`Claim 2 .................................................................................. 1716 
`Challenge #2: Claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103
`over Mitchnick and Sheldon ........................................................... 1817 
`1.
`Summary of Sheldon ............................................................ 1817 
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Mitchnick and Sheldon ....................... 1917 
`3.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................. 2120 
`Challenge #3: Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Mitchnick, Sheldon, and Tanenhaus ....................................... 2928 
`1.
`Summary of Tanenhaus ........................................................ 2928 
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Mitchnick, Sheldon, Tanenhaus ......... 3028 
`3.
`Claim 4 .................................................................................. 3231 
`Challenge #4: Claim 5-6 and 9-10 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. §103 over Fabio in view of Pasolini ................................... 3634 
`1.
`State of the Art at the Time of the ʼ902 Patent ..................... 3635 
`2.
`Summary of Fabio ................................................................ 3736 
`3.
`Summary of Pasolini ............................................................ 4139 
`4.
`Reasons to Combine Fabio and Pasolini .............................. 4342 
`5.
`Claim 5 .................................................................................. 4745 
`6.
`Claim 6 .................................................................................. 6058 
`7.
`Claim 9 .................................................................................. 6361 
`
`–iii–
`
`Page 3 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................ 6967 
`8.
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 7472 
`X.
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ................................................................. 7673 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 7774 
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1 
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 2 
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2 
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ..................... 3 
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ902 PATENT ............................................................ 3 
`A.
`Summary of the Patent .......................................................................... 3 
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 4 
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 5 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5 
`A.
`“dominant axis” .................................................................................... 6 
`B.
`“cadence window” ................................................................................ 7 
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 7 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................................... 7 
`A.
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 7 
`
`IX.
`
`–iv–
`
`Page 4 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................... 8 
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C §
`103 over Mitchnick ............................................................................... 8 
`1.
`Summary of Mitchnick ............................................................... 8 
`2. Mitchnick’s embodiments are combinable ............................... 10 
`3.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 11 
`4.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 16 
`Challenge #2: Claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103
`over Mitchnick and Sheldon ............................................................... 17 
`1.
`Summary of Sheldon ................................................................ 17 
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Mitchnick and Sheldon ........................... 17 
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 20 
`Challenge #3: Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103
`over Mitchnick, Sheldon, and Tanenhaus ........................................... 28 
`1.
`Summary of Tanenhaus ............................................................ 28 
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Mitchnick, Sheldon, Tanenhaus ............. 28 
`3.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 31 
`Challenge #4: Claim 5-6 and 9-10 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C §103 over Fabio in view of Pasolini ........................................ 34 
`1.
`State of the Art at the Time of the ʼ902 Patent ......................... 35 
`2.
`Summary of Fabio .................................................................... 36 
`3.
`Summary of Pasolini ................................................................ 39 
`4.
`Reasons to Combine Fabio and Pasolini .................................. 42 
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 45 
`
`–v–
`
`Page 5 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 57 
`6.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 61 
`7.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 66 
`8.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72 
`X.
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 73 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 74 
`
`–vi–
`
`Page 6 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LISTLIST OF EXHIBITS
`January 5, 2018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Declaration of Joe Paradiso, Ph.D., under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joe Paradiso
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0084848 to Mitchnick (“Mitchnick”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,469,639 to Tanenhaus et al. (“Tanenhaus”)
`
`U. S. Patent No. 5,957,957 to Sheldon (“Sheldon”)
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in
`IPR2018-00424
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`
`
`–vii–
`
`Page 7 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902 (“the ʼ902 patent,” Ex.1001) is generally directed
`
`to monitoring periodic human motions, such as walking, running, biking, and other
`
`activities. To do this, the ʼ902 patent uses a device that includes an accelerometer,
`
`which detects acceleration associated with the periodic human motion. And, when
`
`the accelerometer fails to detect acceleration associated with the periodic motion,
`
`the monitoring device enters a low power sleep mode.
`
`As this Petition shows, the prior art renders obvious the challenged claims of
`
`the ʼ902 patent. Accordingly, the Board should institute trial and find claims 1-6
`
`and 9-10 unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Apple Inc. v. Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-00424 (“the Apple IPR Proceeding”), which the Board
`
`instituted on August 2, 2018.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Apple IncPetitioner identifies Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`–1–
`
`Page 8 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`The ’902 patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`•
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-00650 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`•
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00737
`
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`(W.D. Wa.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00364 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-01629
`
`•
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-2917
`
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`Also, as noted above, the ’902 patent has been challenged in the Apple IPR
`
`Proceeding. Petitioner has concurrently filed a motion to join this proceeding. The
`
`’902 Patent is also at issue in Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-01028.
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`petitioner, the ’902 patent has been asserted in the following cases:
`
`Heading
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Devices
`USA, Inc.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC America,
`Inc.
`
`Filed
`Court
`Number
`2-17-cv-00737 E.D. Tx. Nov. 9, 2017
`
`2-17-cv-01629 W.D. Wa. Nov. 1, 2017
`
`–2–
`
`Page 9 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics
`USA, Inc.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`4-12-cv-00832 N.D. Tx. Oct. 13, 2017
`
`2-17-cv-00650 E.D. Tx.
`
`Sep. 15, 2017
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`
`
`2-17-cv-00522 E.D. Tx.
`
`Jun. 30, 2017
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Michael Parsons
`Phone: (972) 739-8611
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,767
`Dina Blikshteyn
`Phone: (212) 835-4809
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 63,962
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224). Backup Counsel: (1) Joseph
`
`E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Chetan Bansal (Limited Recognition No. L0667).
`
`Service Information: Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC
`
`20005; Tel: (202) 551-1700; Fax: (202) 551-1705; E-mail: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`Page 10 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ʼ902 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ʼ902 patent on July 7,
`
`2017, which is not more than one year before the filing of this Petition. Petitioner
`
`has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ʼ902 patent.
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`Petitioner’s citation to Ex.1002 uses the page numbers added for compliance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Citations to the remaining exhibits use the page
`
`numbers in their original publication. Unless otherwise noted, all bold underline
`
`emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ902 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Patent
`The ʼ902 patent is directed to an electronic device that “count[s] steps or
`
`other periodic human motions.” Ex.1001, 2:29-30. To “count” the periodic human
`
`motions, the electronic device “includes one or more inertial sensors”—such as an
`
`accelerometer—that measure acceleration data to detect a motion cycle. Ex.1001,
`
`–4–
`
`Page 11 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`1:18, 2:25-26, 2:38-43, 3:47-48. According to the ʼ902 patent, a “period and/or
`
`cadence of the motion cycle may be based on a human 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.
`
`To reduce power consumption, the electronic device operates in different
`
`modes. Ex.1001, 8:20-23. In claims 1-4, one of these modes is a “sleep mode” 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, 10:40-41. 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, 9:5-7.
`
`Unlike claims 1-4, claims 5-10 are directed to determining a step cadence
`
`window “used to count steps.” Ex.1001, 4:21-22. The step 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 cadence window may have a 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.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`–5–
`
`Page 12 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`The ʼ902 patent issued on February 1, 2011, from the U.S Patent Application
`
`No. 12/694,135 filed January 26, 2010. The ʼ902 patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,653,508, filed on December 22, 2006. On September 24, 2010, and
`
`without any previous action, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance for
`
`original claim 12 (issued claim 1) and original claim 25 (issued claim 5). Ex.1002,
`
`pp.5,34. Consequently, the references presented in this petition were not cited or
`
`applied by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who had, at the priority date of the
`
`ʼ902 pPatent (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. Ex.1003, p.8. Lack of work experience can be remedied
`
`by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, p.8.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`–6–
`
`Page 13 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`This pPetition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`579 U.S.______, slip op. at 17 (2016); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, because the claim constructions proposed herein are
`
`based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not necessarily apply to
`
`other proceedings that use different claim construction standards. See Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc., IPR2013-00569, Paper 9 at 2 (PTAB
`
`2013). Therefore, Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different claim
`
`constructions in other proceedings, including in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00650 (E.D. Tex.). For terms not
`
`addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is necessary for
`
`this proceeding.
`
`A.
`“dominant axis”
`This term appears in at least claim 10. In the specification of the ʼ902 patent,
`
`the dominant axis is determined based on the accelerometer’s alignment with
`
`gravity. Ex.1003, p.15. For example, the specification states that “[i]n one
`
`embodiment, the dominant axis is assigned after identifying a gravitational
`
`–7–
`
`Page 14 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`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.
`
`Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “dominant axis” as used
`
`in the claims includes “the axis most influenced by gravity.” Ex.1003, p.16.
`
`B.
`“cadence window”
`This term appears in at least claim 5. The 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.
`
`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.” Ex.1003, p.16.
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED
`RELIEF
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-6 and 9-10, and cancel
`
`–8–
`
`Page 15 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`those claims. As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr.
`
`Joe Paradiso, the concepts described and claimed in the ʼ902 patent were not new.
`
`This petition explains where each element of claims 1-6 and 9-10 is found in the
`
`prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a POSITA before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ʼ902 patent.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-6 and 9-10 of the ʼ902 patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge
`Challenge #1
`
`Claims
`1-2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Challenge #2
`
`Challenge #3
`
`Challenge #4
`
`Ground
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent
`Publication No. 2006/0084848 to Mitchnick
`(“Mitchnick”).
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mitchnick in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,957,957 to Sheldon
`(“Sheldon”).
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mitchnick, in
`view of Sheldon, and further in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,469,639 to Tanenhaus et al. (“Tanenhaus”)
`
`5-6, 9-10 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent
`No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”) in
`view of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to
`Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”)
`
`
`
`Pasolini (Ex.1005) was filed on October 2, 2006, issued on December 9,
`
`2008, and is prior art under § 102(e). Fabio (Ex.1006) was filed on October 2,
`
`–9–
`
`Page 16 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`2006, issued on April 13, 2010, and is prior art under § 102(e). Mitchnick
`
`(Ex.1007) was filed on October 14, 2004, published on April 20, 2006, and is prior
`
`art under § 102(e). Tanenhaus (Ex.1008) issued on October 22, 2002, and is prior
`
`art under § 102(b). Sheldon (Ex.1009) issued on September 28, 1999, and is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`C. Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Mitchnick
`1.
`Summary of Mitchnick
`Mitchnick is directed to a monitoring device “for automatically monitoring
`
`participants.” Ex.1007, ¶9. The device can reside “in or on the body.” Ex.1007,
`
`¶43. The device includes an inertial sensor, such as a “MEMS-based
`
`accelerometer” that “can measure positive and negative accelerations.” Ex.1007,
`
`¶50. The device can detect an activity of a participant “by observing characteristic
`
`patterns of participant motion as sensed by an acceleration.” Ex.1007, ¶12. To
`
`identify the activity, the device “compares observed characteristics” of an
`
`acceleration signal “to a template indicating ranges of characteristics likely to
`
`indicate” the activity. Ex.1007, ¶70. The device then determines that the “activity
`
`is likely if the observed characteristics match the template.” Ex.1007, ¶70.
`
`Mitchnick’s device also 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
`
`–10–
`
`Page 17 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`device to function “for extended periods, e.g., weeks, a month, or several
`
`months, or up to a year or more.” Ex.1007, ¶11. This is used because the
`
`monitored “activity is intermittent” and “power and memory can be
`
`advantageously further conserved, and device life further extended, by only
`
`intermittently sampling.” Ex.1007, ¶69. “[W]hen the device is neither sampling
`
`for sexual activity nor storing monitoring data, it enters a low-power sleep state.”
`
`Ex.1007, ¶72.
`
`In Mitchnick, “[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. Accordingly, “[o]nly the MC and a wake-up circuit need
`
`to be powered.” Ex.1007, ¶68. Upon entering the sleep mode, 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.
`
`2. Mitchnick’s embodiments are combinable
`
`–11–
`
`Page 18 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Mitchnick is primarily directed to a monitoring device that is “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 also be performed by
`
`an external device attached to a body since Mitchnick specifically states that its
`
`device can resides elsewhere “on the body” in order to detect “other parameters of
`
`medical/clinical interest.” Ex.1007, ¶11; see Ex.1003, pp.18-19.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized the benefits of modifying Mitchnick’s
`
`internal device to reside on the body, and not in the body cavity. Ex.1003, p.19.
`
`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. Ex.1003, p.19. 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. Ex.1003, p.19. 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 for example, a heart attack or a knee surgery.
`
`Ex.1003, p.19. 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.
`
`Ex.1003, p.19. Thus, given Mitchnick’s express teachings, a POSITA would have
`
`–12–
`
`Page 19 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`found it obvious to implement Mitchnick’s internal embodiment as an external
`
`version that resides on the human body. Ex.1003, p.19.
`
`Claim 1
`
`3.
`[1.0] “A method comprising:”
`To the extent that this preamble is limiting, Mitchnick discloses a method
`
`that “comprises awakening periodically from a low power sleep state in order to
`
`determine from acceleration measurements” whether a participant is engaged in an
`
`activity. Ex.1007, ¶31. Accordingly, Mitchnick discloses “[a] method comprising”
`
`as claimed. Ex.1003, p.20.
`
`[1.1] “detecting motion by an inertial sensor included in a mobile device”
`First, Mitchnick teaches that a monitoring device having an accelerometer
`
`that detects motion. Ex.1007, ¶49, Fig.7. The accelerometer is a type of an inertial
`
`sensor because it senses acceleration due to gravity. Ex.1003, pp.20-21.
`
`–13–
`
`Page 20 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitionn for Inter
`Partes Reeview
`
`
`
` of UU.S. Patentt No. 7,8811,902
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.10077, Fig.1 (annnotated); EEx.1003, pp.21. In Miitchnick, thhe acceleroometer deteects
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motion bbecause it mmeasures aacceleratioon caused bby “patternns of particcipant motiion.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.10011, ¶12. Acccordingly, Mitchnickk teaches ddetecting mmotion by aan inertial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sensor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`itoring in a “monirometer is ithe acceleraches that ttchnick teaSeecond, Mit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device[]]” that residdes within a human ssubject. Exx.1007, ¶443. This mmonitoring
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device is a mobile device forr a numberr of reasonss—it is smmall in size
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and can bee
`
`
`
`d to ise tetherednot otherwiery and is ndes a battean; it includby a humaeasily trransported
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an exterrnal power source; annd it does nnot restrict
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the user’s
`
`
`
`movemennt and mob
`
`ility.
`
`
`
`See Ex.11007, Figs.1, 5B; Ex..1003, pp.222-23. Addditionally,, Mitchnickk teaches tthat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`Page 21 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`its internal embodiment can be “entirely dispensed with, and all data sensed from an
`
`external unit on … the participant.” Ex.1007, ¶15. As discussed above, a POSITA
`
`would find it obvious to implement Mitchnick’s internal embodiment as an external
`
`device. Ex.1003, pp.18-19.
`
`Further, Mitchnick’s device is designed to “communicate wirelessly using
`
`one of the available very lower power, short range radio linked protocols.”
`
`Ex.1007, ¶15. Accordingly, given that Mitchnick teaches a device that is small,
`
`battery powered, carried by a human, and communicates with other devices
`
`wirelessly, a POSITA would recognize the monitoring device to be a mobile device.
`
`Ex.1003, pp.23-24.
`
`Because Mitchnick teaches a mobile monitoring device that includes an
`
`accelerometer that measures acceleration due to a participant’s motion, and teaches
`
`that the device can be implemented externally, Mitchnick renders obvious
`
`“detecting motion by an inertial sensor included in a mobile device” as claimed.
`
`Ex.1003, p.24.
`
`[1.2] “determining, by the mobile device, whether the motion has a motion
`signature indicative of a user activity that the mobile device is configured to
`monitor”
`Mitchnick discloses this limitation. First, as discussed in section [1.1],
`
`Mitchnick’s monitoring device renders obvious a mobile device that detects motion
`
`via an accelerometer. Ex.1003, p.24.
`
`–15–
`
`Page 22 of 86
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902
`
`Second, Mitchnick teaches that the monitoring device includes a “sexual-
`
`activity check” that “extracts characteristics from an observed accelerometer
`
`signal, compares observed characteristics to a template indicating ranges of
`
`characteristics likely to indicate sexual activity, and indicates sexual activity is
`
`likely if the observed characteristics match the template.” Ex.1007, ¶70. In
`
`particular, Mitchnick teaches the characteristics of the observed accelerometer
`
`signal include “the values of significant peaks in the accelerometer signal,
`
`representing significant acceleration of a device wearer, and the times of these
`
`peaks or the time intervals between these peaks.” Ex.1007, ¶70. These acceleration
`
`signals are compa