RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Held on December 12, 2019
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Held on December 12, 2019
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PHILLIP CITROËN, ESQUIRE
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQUIRE
`ANDERSON TO, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL A. WOLFE, ESQUIRE
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRIAN KOIDE, ESQUIRE
`RYAN LOVELESS, ESQUIRE
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`JAMES ETHERIDGE, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY HUANG, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group
`brian@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`December 12, 2019, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`THE USHER: All rise.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Please be seated. Okay. Good afternoon,
`
`everybody. We are here for our hearing in IPR 2018-1664, between
`Petitioner, Samsung; and Patent Owner, Uniloc.
`I'm Judge Baer. With me is Judge Bisk, and Judge Boudreau is on the
`screen there appearing remotely. Judge Boudreau, can you hear us?
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Yes, I can hear you.
`JUDGE BAER: Excellent. All right, let's go ahead and get the
`
`parties' appearances. Let's start off with participants, who do we have for
`Petitioner Samsung?
`MR. CITROËN: Your Honors, Phillip Citroën, on behalf of
`Petitioner, Samsung, and with me today is Naveen Modi and Anderson To.
`JUDGE BAER: And Counsel will you be presenting today?
`MR. CITROËN: Yes, I will.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. Thank you. And for Patent Owner.
`MR. KOIDE: Brian Koide for Patent Owner, Uniloc 2017.
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Counsel. We certainly appreciate you all
`making the effort to be here. We know it is some effort, and we do
`appreciate you making the effort to be here.
`A couple of things we want to address. The parties are each going to
`have 45 minutes as we set forth in our Hearing Order. Please keep in mind
`that whatever you project on the screen, Judge Boudreau won't be able to
`see, but he does have a copy of the slides. So, to help us keep the record
`clear, and to help Judge Boudreau , if you could just reference what slide, or
`what Exhibit you're talking about that would be helpful.
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`We remind the parties that we are not going to do speaking objections,
`under no circumstances are you to object while the other part is presenting.
`If you have an objection that's fine, but you may present it during your
`argument time.
`I think that's about it, does Counsel for Petitioner have any questions?
`MR. CITROËN: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: And Counsel for Patent Owner?
`MR. KOIDE: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. With that, we are ready to begin. We are
`going to start with Petitioner. I know that we don't -- this case is a little
`unusual because we just have the motion to amend. But we are going to
`start with Petitioner. So, we'll go ahead and start with you. Counsel, first of
`all, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. CITROËN: Yes, Your Honor, 15 minutes.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay.
`MR. CITROËN: And before we begin, I have copies of the
`demonstratives if you'd like them.
`JUDGE BAER: Please.
`MR. CITROËN: Sure.
`JUDGE BAER: And Patent Owner, do you have copies of your
`demonstratives, or no?
`MR. KOIDE: I'm sorry, I do not.
`JUDGE BAER: That's fine. Because if you did, we'd have you bring
`them up now, but that's okay, we have copies. Great, thank you. Take your
`time setting up, but as soon as you're ready, you may begin, we'll put -- you
`said 15 minutes rebuttal, Counsel?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`MR. CITROËN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. We'll put 30 minutes on the clock. And you
`can begin whenever you're ready.
`MR. CITROËN: Good afternoon. May it please the Board? My
`name Phillip Citroën, and I will be speaking on behalf of Petitioner Samsung
`today. And as I mentioned earlier, with me is Naveen Modi and Anderson
`To, also on behalf of Petitioner Samsung.
`So, just to provide some context before I get into the specific issues,
`certain claims of the 646 Patent have already been challenged in an IPR,
`claims 1, 3, 5 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20, were found unpatentable by this same
`Panel in IPR 2018-289, which was filed by Apple and joined by Samsung.
`Because claim 22, which is the sole claim challenged in this proceeding, the
`position from claim 20 as practically identical to claim 18, the same
`combination of references and the same analysis was provided in this
`petition.
`Faced with the decision in 289, Uniloc did not file a Patent Owner
`response as was previously mentioned, so the positions in the petition are
`uncontested with respect to claim 22, and should be found unpatentable for
`the same reasons that claim 18 was found unpatentable.
`JUDGE BAER: But claim 22 is going to be cancelled, right, because
`we have non-contingent motion to amend, so let's go ahead and jump right
`into the amended claim.
`MR. CITROËN: Okay. So, if you can go to slide 2 very quickly.
`This presents -- slide 2 presents claim 23, which is the amended claim that
`was presented, and the old highlights the differences between claim 22 and
`claim 23.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`Slides 3 through 5, I'm not going to go through those, but they do
`highlight the three requirements that were added in this amendment. I'll
`address those in more detail as I go on, but they are there for your reference.
`So if you can go to slide --
`JUDGE BAER: Just go ahead and jump to the point, I guess. The
`only thing I understand you to be contesting is whether the amendment
`about the operation arranged at the motion sensor is in the original spec,
`right? And I think your biggest problem on that, is there in column 3, the
`example about the glitch correcting--
`Well, I'll just read it, this is, I'm in column 3, starting at line 23. It
`says, "The glitch correcting logic 235 further may be used to discard non-
`human motions. For example, if the device is not being used but is in a
`moving vehicle, and in one embodiment the vehicle's motion can be
`discarded as not fitting the signature of human motion."
`You would agree, wouldn't you, that is real motion picked up by the
`motion sensor? Would you not?
`MR. CITROËN: Your Honor, I'm not sure I would agree, because the
`specification doesn’t tell us one way or another whether that is motion
`within the operational range of the sensor, and may be, but the disclosure is
`vague, it doesn’t explicitly say one way or another if that's the case.
`JUDGE BAER: But there's no indication that this is -- as opposed to
`the other disclosures in the specification, there's no indication that this is a
`problem, or an error, or some sort of malfunction. Is there?
`MR. CITROËN: So, with respect to the non-human motions in
`moving vehicles, it is part of the glitch corrector logic, and the glitch
`corrector logic is detecting those types of movements as well as what would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`potentially be a glitch, and as you’ve indicated or suggested, throughout the
`specification, indicates that a glitch can be a sensor malfunction, it could be
`an abnormal accelerator reading.
`So, looking at the context as a whole it isn't clear whether or not those
`particular movements are glitches, or are the types of movements that would
`be within the range of the accelerometer or not.
`JUDGE BAER: I mean, I understood your argument to be a lot of the
`spec discloses those glitches to be malfunctions of some kind. I agree with
`you. We addressed that in our decision on institution. I don't have a
`problem with that. The problem is, I think if the spec also discloses an
`embodiment where a glitch is not an error, but is some sort of motion that
`you don't want, then Patent Owner is going to win on whether the spec
`discloses this. So, I want to know whether I'm right on that. So, if the spec
`discloses both, am I correct that it's fine for Patent Owner to claim just one
`of those embodiments in its claim?
`MR. CITROËN: So, I think we have to go back to what is the
`standard for written description. It's, what would a person of ordinary skill
`in the art reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed -- was the claimed
`invention, so claim 23 here: Can a person of ordinary skill in the art
`reasonably conclude from the specification that they actually invented that?
`That's the problem we have here, that standard is not met.
`For one, there is no mention of "within the operational range of the
`motion sensor" that doesn’t appear once in the specification. The limitation
`within an operational range is not even contemplated by the specification the
`only thing that this system cares about is whether it's within an acceptable
`range.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`Now Uniloc's argument is, what I believe it is that they point to an
`example and say, in our opinion without expert testimony, this glitch is
`within the operational range, and that's all we need to do. We need to point
`to some example where that may be possible, but that's not enough for a
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`And we have testimony in the record from Dr. Essa, where he
`explains that based on the disclosure, a person of skill in the art wouldn't
`understand within the operational range to be within the claimed scope.
`Now, I think on thing that's really helpful to --
`JUDGE BAER: Does Dr. Essa address this passage explicitly?
`MR. CITROËN: I believe he does, Your Honor. And at least I think
`we may have a slide on that as well.
`JUDGE BAER: And let me just sort of apologize ahead of time, I'm
`going to push you a little bit.
`MR. CITROËN: Sure.
`JUDGE BAER: Because we have a motion to amend here, we don't
`have the same extent of briefing we do normally. So, normally I like to let
`the parties sort of direct the arguments, but in this case we've got some
`arguments that we really need to address, because there's just not a lot of
`briefing on the issue.
`MR. CITROËN: Sure, sure. Understood, Your Honor. So, I don't
`think I have any more slides, but I can certainly pull it off, and then give you
`the citation, that I believe he does address that particularly limitation. But
`one thing I wanted to point out is that the whole purpose of -- if we can go to
`slide 16, please, there is a very good reason why there is no disclosure or
`even contemplation of within an operational range. That's because the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`specification, the entire purpose of it is to look at whether there is a real
`motion so it knows when to wake up to the device, because the goal is to
`conserve battery power.
`And that's presented here in slide 16, this is Exhibit 1001, column 1,
`lines 24 to 51, and lines 59 to 63, you can see: "The present invention
`provides a method and system to wake up a device due to motion, but only if
`it determines that the motion is real motion. If the motion is -- if it is not
`real, such as a jostle or a glitch you don't want to wake up the device."
`So, now what they’ve claimed is -- and we can go to slide -- I think
`it's helpful to look at the illustration. Slide 10, please. So now what they’ve
`claimed is, only glitches that fall within the middle portion here, is
`something that you would exclude and not wake up the device. So, if it's
`within -- the data is within an acceptable range, it's not a glitch. So, you
`would wake up the device. If it's data outside an operational range, it's also
`not a glitch according to the claim. So you would still wake up the device.
`That's directly contrary to what the specification is talking about. So
`if you have, just to give an example, if the accelerometer malfunctions and
`gives you 1000 miles per hour, you would still wake up the device under
`their claim. That is directly at odds with what the specification is describing,
`it only wants to wake up the device when it detects a real motion by the user
`so --
`JUDGE BAER: But the word "only" doesn’t show up in the claim,
`you would agree with me. It says, I agree with you, it certainly says waking
`up the device when you’ve got -- when you’ve got -- it describes waking up
`the device under certain circumstances, but there is nothing in the claim that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`forbids waking up the device under other circumstances. You used the word
`"only" and I don't think the word "only" appears in the claim.
`MR. CITROËN: But they are narrowing the scope of the claim, so
`essentially a negative limitation that they’ve inserted into the claim. They're
`saying a glitch is everything -- cannot be anything outside an operational
`range. And when you have a limitation like that, a negative limitation, to
`adequately support that in the specification, you actually have to provide a
`reason why you're excluding that relevant limitation, and that's the Santarus
`case that we cited in our briefings, 694 F.3d 1344, that of course doesn’t
`exist in the specification.
`As I've just explained, the entire purpose is to only wake up the device
`for real motion. So, of course, if you have a malfunction that's beyond the
`range of the glitch -- excuse me -- beyond the range of accelerometer or the
`sensor that should not wake up the device. But under their claim, they said
`that the inventor actually invented something where that type of data could
`wake up the device. And that's not what was described here.
`What they’ve done is arbitrarily dissect their invention in the hopes of
`getting around the prior art. And actually pooled the language "operational",
`this whole idea of, you know, what the bounds of the range of the sensor is,
`from a prior art reference, that's what they did. They didn’t pool it from
`their specification, there is no support in their specification.
`JUDGE BAER: So, before we get too far into your argument, I'd like
`you to move to the issue of whether McMahon, briefly, whether McMahon
`discloses the limitation of less data, the less data --
`MR. CITROËN: So the removal limitation?
`JUDGE BAER: I beg your pardon. Whether Hyatt discloses --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`MR. CITROËN: I see.
`JUDGE BAER: -- the less data limitation. So, Patent Owner has
`raised this argument that Hyatt filters out all of the data, so there's not less
`data. And I would like you to address that argument if you would.
`MR. CITROËN: Of course, Your Honor. Amos (phonetic), if you
`could go to slide --
`JUDGE BAER: I know we're asking you to jump around. That's fine,
`take your time and get to the slide you need to.
`MR. CITROËN: Let's go to slide 40, please? So just to set the stage
`quickly, for Hyatt, as Your Honors are likely aware, they don't actually
`contest that Hyatt discloses the glitches, so within an operational range, and
`outside an acceptable range. They do context whether it discloses the
`removing a glitch from the motion data limitation, but what they argue, if
`you can go to slide 41, what they argue isn't really that it doesn’t disclose
`removing it, they're really focusing on how it's removed. And that's their
`issue with Hyatt.
`So, let's talk quickly about what Hyatt does. At the top is Figure 4
`from Hyatt, Exhibit 1017, you have a motion sensor 60, that continuously
`outputs motion data. You then have 64, a low pass filter which will look at
`the motion data, and depending on if it satisfies a certain threshold, or a
`certain amplitude, or a certain frequency, it will block that data, or using the
`language from Hyatt, remove that data before it's passed on to circuit -- I
`think it's 42. So, it removes data from the system.
`Now, if you go to slide 42, what they argue, they contend that claim
`23 requires glitches to be, "A part but not all of a collection of generated
`motion data." Their position is that Hyatt, when you're looking at what we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`just discussed with the Figure, does not disclose removal of glitches because
`Hyatt allegedly, you know, I'm quoting from their paper, "Performing
`processing on one signal at a time in a manner which results in blocking the
`signal in its entirety from being input to the control circuit."
`But the claims don't require processing a batch of data or a collection
`of data, it doesn’t preclude looking at one piece of motion data at a time, and
`I think the important part is, the specification also doesn’t disclose that. It
`actually discloses the opposite.
`So if we go to slide 43, this is Figure 6 from the 646 Patent, it's
`Exhibit 1001. Here, it's actually describing a process where motion data,
`one datum at a time is analyzed and removed or passed on to the next step.
`So, if you look at -- and I apologize, the text is small so it's hard to read.
`Step 615, which is in the middle there, you check whether the motion datum
`is within the allowable range.
`If it's outside the allowable range, at steps 635, towards the right, that
`data is just discarded, that piece of data, that one piece o data, if the datum is
`within an allowable range, you then go down the (inaudible) to 625, and it's
`sent to the long average logic, and this is actually where it's combined with
`other data in the system to actually figure out what the long average is.
`So the 646 Patent itself, and this is the only disclosure describing the
`process, does one piece of motion data at a time. So there is no support for
`their reading of the claim to say that, you can't process one piece of motion
`data at a time. That's what's described in the patent, that's what's described
`in Hyatt. So, yes, in our view, it is disclosed.
`And I think one other point I'll make is, even if you accept their
`position is true, as I explained earlier, if we can go back to slide 42, I'm
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`sorry 41, what Hyatt does, the motion sensor is continuously outputting
`motion data, analyzing that data, so there's more than one motion data, it's
`analyzing that collection of data, determining out of that data which is an
`intended motion -- which is unintended motion, just like the patent, is there a
`jostle, that's an unintended motion.
`Those are removed, intended motions are not removed and they go
`forward and are used to do whatever the analysis -- or whatever the purpose
`of the motion data is, and I think in this patent it's for manipulating the user
`interface. So, even under their interpretation, which I submit is not correct,
`it's still disclosed by Hyatt, because it's looking at a continuous stream of
`collection data.
`JUDGE BAER: Counsel, could I direct you to the combination of
`Pasolini and Marvit, if we could.
`MR. CITROËN: Yes.
`JUDGE BAER: And could you please explain exactly what is
`missing from Pasolini and what are you relying on Marvit for?
`MR. CITROËN: Sure. So, the original claim, claim 22 is exactly the
`same as claim 18, it disclosed -- and if I can pull up. It disclosed a glitch
`detector that determined whether the motion had included one or more
`glitches -- I'm sorry, excuse me -- a dominant axis logic to determine idle
`sample value.
`Now, Patent Owner's position is, before they even amended the claim,
`that there were some requirements that you actually had to determine a
`dominant axis that wasn’t in the claim before. Now, they’ve gone in and
`explicitly put this in, so the issue with Pasolini, what they argue is missing,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`so Pasolini looks at all 30 axes to see if any one of those axes are beyond the
`threshold, before they will actually use the data for that particularly axis.
`JUDGE BAER: And your position in the petition was that, well, one
`of those axes, one of those values is going to be the dominant axis. We don't
`know what it is, but we don't care --
`MR. CITROËN: Exactly.
`JUDGE BAER: -- Right?
`MR. CITROËN: That's correct, Your Honor. Now they’ve inserted
`this limitation to argue that it's not disclosed by Pasolini, so we found an
`additional reference that's even more explicit, two additional references
`actually, Marvit and Fabio. Both talk about selecting one particular axis,
`and for Marvit you isolate that particular axis because the data for that axis
`is all you care about. So, if you're scrolling on your phone, I think the
`example that Marvit provides you. You only, once you look at your vertical
`motion to scroll through the pages.
`JUDGE BISK: I'm sorry. I think I missed something. Can you
`explain how Pasolini determines the dominant axis? I thought that it didn’t
`determine it because it just determines that at least one of the three is
`changing.
`MR. CITROËN: Sure, Your Honor. So our position, we are actually,
`we are relying on Marvit and Fabio for this amended claim 23.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Right.
`MR. CITROËN: So I was trying to provide some context for claim 22
`before they added that limitation, that it does look at all (crosstalk) --
`JUDGE BISK: Right. So, you're not -- your position is not that
`Pasolini determines the dominant axis?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`MR. CITROËN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MR. CITROËN: Yes, yes. And I'm sorry for the confusion.
`JUDGE BAER: But Marvit's dominant axis is the axis of highest
`magnitude, it's not the one that aligns with gravity. Is that correct?
`MR. CITROËN: Your Honor, so it's a broader disclosure, it does talk
`about looking at the amount of motion. So, if can go to -- I understand if
`you can go to slide 54. So Pasolini, if we can talk about that quickly one
`more time. This is Dr. Essa's testimony which I'll get to a moment. Pasolini
`looks at what is -- at two different types of acceleration, static acceleration
`and then -- has two different acceleration signals, the static acceleration, and
`a dynamic acceleration, and it uses the static acceleration to determine
`whether there is a -- which axis has the greatest force of gravity.
`And that's in Exhibit -- this is reading from Pasolini here, Exhibit
`1003, column 5, 10 to 14, it states, "Such as, for example, the force of
`gravity with respect to the static acceleration. So, with Pasolini, you can
`look at the static acceleration signals to figure out which of the three axes
`has the most effect of gravity. You then have --
`JUDGE BAER: But then why do you need --
`JUDGE BISK: Marvit.
`JUDGE BAER: Then why do you need Marvit?
`MR. CITROËN: So the reason Marvit comes in, the reason they work
`well together, is because Marvit actually tells you, you need to select based
`on that amount of acceleration. Pasolini doesn’t give you that, Pasolini just
`says: you have these -- he uses the static acceleration to determine that
`dynamic acceleration, it subtracts out gravity to figure out how fast is it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`actually, physically moving. So, if a user is holding it. That's what Pasolini
`does.
`But that static acceleration does tell you which axis has the most
`movement due to gravity that has the largest effect of gravity. You can then
`take Marvit which says, look at the axis that had the most movement that is
`your dominant axis. So combined the position is, and this is supported by
`Dr. Essa, is that you select the axis with the highest static acceleration based
`on Pasolini, that can be the axis with the most effects -- or affected most by
`gravity. So the combination gets you this added limitation of determining a
`dominant axis.
`JUDGE BAER: So could you just identify for me explicitly again, I
`apologize if you did this before, exactly where in Pasolini, that Pasolini
`identifies the dominant axis, or the selected axis to be the one that's aligned
`with gravity?
`MR. CITROËN: So, our position is, it's not Pasolini is selecting a
`dominant axis, for one, I just want to make sure that's clear. We are relying
`on Marvit and Fabio separately for that limitation. What I'm saying is
`Pasolini, what it gives you is data that helps you identify which axis is
`affected most by gravity. It doesn’t select that particular axis. And this is
`column 5, line 10 to 14, this is where it describes static acceleration. It
`states that you can look at each axis and determine what the static
`acceleration is, and it says one example of a static acceleration is looking at
`the force of gravity on that particularly axis.
`JUDGE BAER: So does it -- does Pasolini identify that the force of
`gravity will be the highest magnitude static acceleration?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`MR. CITROËN: It does not, so what it does is use that data to
`subtract from the -- oh, let me see here. So there's a separate acceleration
`signal that is the total amount of acceleration, so if you move it you're going
`to have a combination of static acceleration such as gravity, and also the
`acceleration caused by the movement itself. It attracts the static acceleration
`from that acceleration -- the acceleration signal to come up with what it calls
`a dynamic acceleration.
`JUDGE BAER: But if Marvit teaches selecting the highest magnitude
`direction, that's the highest magnitude axes.
`MR. CITROËN: Correct.
`JUDGE BAER: And Pasolini teaches aligning -- finding the gravity
`axes, you still need a teaching that says the gravity axes is the highest
`magnitude, that way when you combine the references you are selecting the
`one that's got the highest magnitude, or selecting the one that is gravity as
`the claim requires. And I'm missing that middle step.
`MR. CITROËN: Okay. Yes, so our position, and let me see if I can
`explain it this way. You’ve got three axes in Pasolini, you have a static
`acceleration for each of those, one is going to be larger than the other
`because it has the most effect of gravity.
`JUDGE BAER: Where does Pasolini say that? Where does Pasolini
`say that the axis in the direction of gravity is going to be of the highest
`magnitude?
`MR. CITROËN: Pasolini doesn’t say that. Pasolini just says that
`each axis has a static acceleration and each of those or -- can be at the force
`of gravity. So, you have three axes, they may have different static
`accelerations, because they're all differently affected by gravity. That's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`where Marvit comes in. Marvit says, now you select the axis that has the
`greatest amount of movement. So, here you take the --
`JUDGE BISK: But how are you getting from the greatest -- I'm sorry
`-- How are you getting from the greatest amount of movement to the greatest
`static acceleration?
`MR. CITROËN: It's the combination of the two references, because
`Marvit tells you, you select the axis with the greatest amount of movement.
`Pasolini tells you, you have your static acceleration, and one of those is
`going to be the greatest.
`JUDGE BISK: Yeah, but it looks like it disconnects there, right.
`There's nothing that's telling us that the greatest amount of static acceleration
`is the dominant axis.
`MR. CITROËN: So that's the reason -- so they, I think, individually
`tell you, you can have static accelerations which are gravity, and you have a
`reference that tells you, you select the axis with the greatest movement, here
`it's going to be gravity, because that's what the static acceleration is.
`JUDGE BISK: Right, that's what I'm asking. Why is it going to be
`gravity?
`MR. CITROËN: So, it's --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Unless the device is actually in freefall I
`wouldn't think that the axis that has the greatest static acceleration would be
`aligned with the axis that has the greatest movement. Can you explain how
`you get -- how you connect those dots?
`MR. CITROËN: So her, if I understand your question correctly,
`Judge Boudreau, if your phone is sitting on a desk, one of the axes is going
`to be most impacted by gravity. There's always gravitational force on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`axes, so with Pasolini, all three axes have a static acceleration. One is going
`to be greater though, because one of those axes, in every situation, is going
`to have a higher magnitude, based on gravity.
`Now, Marvit tells you, you select the one that has the highest
`movement. Here that movement, based on Pasolini, is gravity, and so based
`on the combination --
`JUDGE BISK: That's only when it's sitting still though, right?
`MR. CITROËN: Excuse me?
`JUDGE BISK: That's only when the phone is, or the device is sitting
`
`still?
`
`MR. CITROËN: I mean, that's one example, gravity is always going
`to be a factor in the movement.
`JUDGE BISK: Right.
`JUDGE BAER: But it's only going to be the largest static when the
`phone is sitting still. Is that true?
`MR. CITROËN: So, if the phone is moving there may be other static
`acceleration that would be larger than the gravitational movement. Is that
`your question?
`JUDGE BAER: That's my question. Is that correct?
`MR. CITROËN: Well, in that case, what Pasolini tells you, is that
`separate those two. It actually looks at, and this is in column 4 of Pasolini
`starting at line 23, going down to, I think, line 64, and this is Exhibit 1003.
`It looks at both the static acceleration and also, and it refers to those as AXS,
`AYS, AZS, but it also looks at the summed acceleration signal, which is AX,
`AY, AZ, and then it subtracts those two, so it always looks at the dynamics -
`- excuse me -- the static acceleration.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`And I just want to point out, we have unrebutted testimony by our
`expert that says a person who is skilled in the art, would have looked at these
`two references, and been able to combine them to arrive at this alleged
`invention, because you -- I don't want to beat a dead horse but --
`JUDGE BISK: So, it says at this 111 and 112 that you're referring to?
`Because I guess I'm not seeing -- it says here, it says: Pasolini, utilizes input
`motion along one axis of motion at a time. Marvit's teaching can be applied
`so that the vertical axis can be selected as the do
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
