throbber

`
`
`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

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