`
`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
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 8,872,646
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. IRFAN ESSA
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1010
`
`Page 1 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 3
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 4
`V.
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’646 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`A.
`“glitch” ................................................................................................ 14
`B.
`“a change in the dominant axis” .......................................................... 14
`C.
`“dominate axis logic to determine an idle sample value” ................... 14
`D.
`“power logic to move the device from the inactive state to an
`active state upon detection of a change in the dominant axis
`which is the axis experiencing the largest effect of gravity” .............. 15
`“device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active
`state, a preset customized state” .......................................................... 16
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 (“Pasolini”) (Ex. 1003) ............................ 16
`B. Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer, Ron Goldman, Sun
`Microsystems Inc. Dated February 23, 2007 (“Goldman”) (Ex.
`1004) .................................................................................................... 20
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,204,123 (“McMahan”) (Ex. 1005) ......................... 21
`D. Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer Orientation, David
`Mizell, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International
`Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC ’03) 2003
`(“Mizell”) (Ex. 1007) .......................................................................... 23
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 62
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 (“Park”) (Ex. 1014) .................................. 24
`E.
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’646 PATENT ....................................... 24
`A.
`The Combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell
`Discloses Every Feature of Claim 20 .................................................. 25
`1.
`[20.a] “A system to wake up a mobile device
`comprising:” .............................................................................. 25
`[20.b] “a motion sensor to detect motion along three axes
`and generation [sic] motion data;” ............................................ 27
`[20.c] “a glitch corrector to determine whether the
`motion data includes one or more glitches and remove
`the one or more glitches from the motion data;” ...................... 34
`[20.d.1] “a dominant axis logic to determine an idle
`sample value,” ........................................................................... 42
`[20.d.2.] “comprising an average of accelerations over a
`sample period along a dominant axis,” ..................................... 46
`[20.d.3] “the dominant axis defined as an axis with a
`largest effect of gravity among the three axes; and” ................ 49
`[20.e] “a power logic to move the device from the
`inactive state to an active state upon detection of a
`change in the dominant axis which is the axis
`experiencing the largest effect of gravity.” ............................... 51
`The Combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and
`Park Discloses Every Feature of Claim 22 ......................................... 55
`1.
`“The system of claim 20, further comprising: a device
`state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active
`state, a preset customized state.” .............................................. 55
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`I, Dr. Irfan Essa, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)
`
`as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646 (“the
`
`’646 patent”) (Ex. 1001.) I have been asked to consider whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in claim 22 (“the challenged claim”) of the
`
`’646 patent. Because claim 22 depends from claim 20, I have also been asked to
`
`consider whether certain references disclose or suggest the features recited in claim
`
`20. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $625 per hour for the time I
`
`spend on this matter. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of
`
`my findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or
`
`any other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`Below I summarize my qualifications, as set forth in more detail in
`
`my curriculum vitae, which I understand is provided as Exhibit 1011.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Distinguished Professor in the School of Interactive
`
`Computing / College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, an
`
`Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`Georgia Institute of Technology. I also serve as an Associate Dean of Research for
`
`the College of Computing and Director of Interdisciplinary Research Center of
`
`Machine Learning
`
`at Georgia Tech. Furthermore,
`
`I
`
`am
`
`a Senior
`
`Researcher/Consultant at Google Research, Mountain View, CA.
`
`5.
`
`I hold a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in Engineering from the Illinois
`
`Institute of Technology earned in 1988. I also hold: (1) a Master of Science (S.M.)
`
`engineering degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earned in
`
`1990, and (2) a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology in Media Arts & Sciences, earned in 1995.
`
`6.
`
`I am a Founding Director of the Computational Perception Laboratory
`
`at Georgia Tech, which was founded in 1996. Also, I am a Founding Member of
`
`the Aware Home Research Initiative at Georgia Tech, which was founded in 1999.
`
`Additionally, I am currently serving as the Founding Director of an Institute-wide
`
`Interdisciplinary Research Center of Machine Learning at Georgia Tech, which
`
`includes over 150 faculty from all over GA Tech, in the areas related to Artificial
`
`Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Science.
`
`7. My academic and research career has focused on research and
`
`teaching in the areas of data analysis and machine intelligence, including extracted
`
`information from sensory data and using it to provide actionable and intelligent
`
`information. I have researched, developed, tested, and deployed computer systems
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`that undertake such analysis. My work has involved visual analysis and analysis of
`
`images and videos, as well as work involving systems that deal with motion
`
`analysis in general, including the use of gyroscopes and accelerometers in addition
`
`to a variety of other sensors. My research concerns the foundational and
`
`fundamental aspects of signal analysis and interpretation, which applies widely to
`
`any form of sensory and signal data.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 150 scholarly and peer-reviewed articles in the
`
`leading and competitive venues in the areas of signal analysis, processing, and
`
`interpretation and also hold nine patents.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`9.
`The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`knowledge regarding systems that use signals and sensory data (e.g., accelerometer
`
`data).
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the
`
`’646 patent (Ex. 1001); the prosecution file history for the ’646 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 (“Pasolini”) (Ex. 1003); Using the LIS3L02AQ
`
`Accelerometer, Ron Goldman, Sun Microsystems Inc., dated February 23, 2007 (
`
`Ron Goldman (“Goldman”) (Ex. 1004); U.S. Patent No. 7,204,123 (“McMahan”)
`
`(Ex. 1005); U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0161377 (“Rakkola”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer Orientation, David Mizell, Proceedings
`
`of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC
`
`’03) 2003 (“Mizell”) (Ex. 1007); U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 (“Park”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, McGraw-Hill (Ex. 1009); and any
`
`other materials I refer to in this declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`11. My opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims and the
`
`specification of the ’646 patent at the time of the alleged invention, which I have
`
`been asked to initially consider as late 2008 time frame, including the October 8,
`
`2008 filing date of the ’646 patent application. My opinions reflect how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’646 patent, the prior art to the
`
`patent, and the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`12. As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that certain references
`
`disclose or suggest all the features recited in claim 22 of the ’646 patent, including
`
`the features recited in claim 20, from which claim 22 depends.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`13. Based on my review of the ’646 patent, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, prior solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations were made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational
`
`level of active workers in the field, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`the time of the alleged invention, which I was asked to assume was late 2008,
`
`would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent, as well as at least two years of
`
`technical experience in the field of systems that use signals and sensory data (e.g.,
`
`accelerometer data). More education can substitute for practical experience and
`
`vice versa.
`
`14. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it here, during the relevant time frame,
`
`i.e., late 2008. During this time frame, I possessed at least the qualifications of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined above.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`15.
`In this section, I present the terminology and a brief overview of
`
`several key technologies that were widely known before late 2008 and that relate to
`
`the issues discussed in the subsequent sections. This section is not intended to be
`
`technically comprehensive, but
`
`rather provide a
`
`foundation
`
`for better
`
`understanding the ’646 patent and the prior art.
`
`16. The ’646 Patent relates to a “method and system for waking up a
`
`device due to motion.” (Ex. 1001, Title.) Motion detection is generally aimed at
`
`using measurements to determine if something is moving. An object or device can
`
`move because (a) it has some sort of actuator/motor to move it, or (b) is inactive on
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`its own, and is moved by something else (e.g., someone picking up an object). In
`
`either case, the device will change state from static to moving, implying it has
`
`some velocity (rate of change of position) and/or acceleration (rate of change of
`
`velocity, i.e., how fast or slow it moves). Similar logic applies to detect when the
`
`device changes state from moving to static, as in, the object stops moving.
`
`Accelerometers are one specific form of technology widely used to detect motion
`
`and are usually attached or embedded in devices that require such detection of
`
`motion. By the time of the alleged invention, accelerometers had been in wide use
`
`for sensing motion, shock, and vibrations. In consumer electronics, accelerometers
`
`were often used to detect motion for applications that require motion input,
`
`orientation sensing, stabilization, etc.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’646 PATENT
`17. As explained in the ’646 Patent, a single mobile device at the time of
`
`the alleged invention could provide a user with “many features and possible uses.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:11-16.) However, according to the ’646 Patent, providing many
`
`features and uses may reduce battery life: “However, generally, the more
`
`applications a mobile device has, the faster the battery of the mobile device
`
`depletes. Therefore, it can be difficult to maximize battery life and provide a great
`
`user experience at the same time.” (Ex. 1001, 1:16-20.)
`
`18.
`
`In this context, the specification of the ’646 Patent describes a method
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`for waking a device from an idle state in response to detecting motion:
`
`A method comprises determining an idle sample value for a
`dominant axis of a device in an idle state. The method further
`comprises registering a motion of the device, and evaluating the
`motion. The method further comprises waking up the device
`when the analysis of the motion indicates a change in the
`dominant axis of the device and/or a level of acceleration
`beyond a threshold.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Abstract; see also Ex. 1001, 1:6-7.)
`
`19. Specifically, the ’646 Patent describes a device that may go into an
`
`“idle state” (e.g., a low-power mode) after a period of inactivity:
`
`The idle state is defined, in one embodiment, as a state in which
`the device is not moving, and there is no active application
`which includes user interaction/display. In one embodiment,
`there may be multiple levels of idle state, e.g. where various
`subsystems are placed in a power-reduced state or not. When
`the device is in the idle state, the device is placed in low-power
`mode. In this state, there is sufficient power maintained to
`monitor at least one sensor. However, other elements and
`applications are turned off to extend the battery life of the
`device.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:11-27; see also Ex. 1001, 4:43-47.)
`
`20. For example, a device may enter the idle state when it is placed on a
`
`desk or into a pocket:
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`In one embodiment, after a device 110 is placed on a horizontal
`surface 115 such as a desk or chair, after a period of inactivity
`the device 110 goes to the idle state to conserve the battery. In
`one embodiment, the device is placed into the pocket, purse,
`bag, or any other non-moving location, the device enters the
`idle state.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:28-34.)
`
`21. As shown in Figure 2 (reproduced below), the device includes various
`
`components, such as a motion sensor in the form of an accelerometer 220 to detect
`
`motion. (Ex. 1001, 2:59-62, 3:4, 4:31-41.) The accelerometer may sample motion
`
`data periodically, and the sampled motion data may be averaged. (Ex. 1001, 2:65-
`
`3:12.) For example, while in the idle state, the device may calculate an “idle
`
`sample” value based on averaged sampled motion data. (Ex. 1001, 5:45-56.)
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`
`
`22. According to the ’646 Patent, the motion data may also be “analyzed
`
`to determine if any [of] it represents a glitch, i.e., data outside a pre-determined
`
`range of acceptable data.” (Ex. 1001, 3:13-37, 6:25-7:5, FIG. 6.) The specification
`
`of the ’646 patent defines “glitch” to include “a datum that indicates a motion
`
`outside an acceptable range.” (Ex. 1001, 6:36-38.) The specification provides
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 62
`
`

`

`examples of detecting such a glitch:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`For example, it is extremely unlikely that a device would go
`from idle (e.g., no motion) to moving at an acceleration of 64
`feet per second squared (equivalent to 2 g). The correcting logic
`examines each datum against a range of acceptable data to
`determine if the datum falls within this range and, therefore,
`should be used in calculating the long average of accelerations.
`In one embodiment, the glitch correction logic utilizes the
`change in acceleration between two readings to determine
`whether there is a glitch.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 6:38-46; see also Ex. 1001, 3:16-22.)
`
`23. Any detected glitches are “discarded,” and “the non-glitch data is then
`
`passed on.” (Ex. 1001, 3:28-31, 6:56-57.)
`
`24. Other than determining glitches, the motion data may also be analyzed
`
`to determine if any of it represents “non-human motion”: “For example, if the
`
`device is not being used but is in a moving vehicle, in one embodiment the
`
`vehicle’s motion can be discarded as not fitting the signature of human motion.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:23-27.)
`
`25. Using data from accelerometer 220, the device determines when it has
`
`been picked up by the user, at which point “the device is moved from the idle state
`
`to an active state rapidly”:
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`The system, in one embodiment, is designed to ensure that
`when the device is picked up by a user, the device is moved
`from the idle state to an active state rapidly. By initiating the
`transition from the idle state to the active state without
`requiring user input, the user wait is reduced. For example,
`when a user 100 picks up the device 110 from its position on
`the horizontal surface 115, the device is designed to wake up.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:35-41; see also Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:6-7, 4:12-20, 5:1-6, 5:40-6:24.)
`
`26. The device may wake up into the “last active state of the device.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:41-46, 4:14-19, 5:7-12.)
`
`27. The ’646 patent explains that the device determines whether it has
`
`been picked up, and therefore should wake up, by comparing the average of
`
`sampled motion data with a “predetermined threshold”:
`
`If the prior and current dominant axes are the same, the
`computation logic 255 determines if the long average has
`changed by more than a predetermined threshold. In one
`embodiment, when the change in the dominant axis is larger
`than
`the
`threshold value,
`the computation
`logic 255
`communicates with the power logic 265 and the device state
`logic 270, to power up the device and restore the last active
`device state. If the change in the dominant axis is not larger
`than the threshold value, the device is maintained in the idle
`state.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:12-20.)
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`28. According to the ’646 Patent, this determination may use “a filter to
`
`remove accelerometer motions below the minimum threshold.” (Ex. 1001, 4:55-
`
`57.) Additionally, it may be determined “if the movement is a ‘real’ motion and
`
`not a mere jostle or bump”:
`
`The device may move, for example, as a result of a little jostle
`of a desk or table on which the device is laying, a heavy step
`nearby, or something else that creates a very small motion, but
`which does not warrant waking up the device. In contrast, the
`device may move as a result of being picked up by a user
`intending to use the device. In this case, the movement is a
`“real” motion which warrants awakening the device.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:62-5:2.) “This reduces power usage, because the device is not
`
`continuously being woken up from small motions which occur when someone
`
`walks near a table, sits down, or similarly causes small motions.” (Ex. 1001, 2:46-
`
`51.)
`
`29. A device may also be caused to wake up “if the dominant axis is
`
`different from the prior dominant axis.” (Ex. 1001, 4:21-24; see also Ex. 1001, 6:4-
`
`6.) Accordingly, any change in the dominant axis (e.g., a change in acceleration
`
`along the dominant axis or if the dominant axis changes to a different axis) may
`
`result in waking the device.
`
`30. The claims define the dominant axis as the axis “with a largest effect
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`of gravity.” (Ex. 1001, 10:31-33; see also Ex. 1001, 3:44-46 (“the axis most
`
`impacted by gravity”).) However, as with any triaxial accelerometer, there will
`
`always be an axis that is more aligned with gravity than the other axes for a given
`
`orientation. Accordingly, any triaxial accelerometer will have a dominant axis,
`
`which may change depending on orientation.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`31.
`I understand that a claim subject to inter partes review receives the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears. I also understand that any term that
`
`is not construed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation. I followed these principles in forming my opinions in
`
`this declaration.
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to consider and apply in my analysis constructions
`
`of certain claim terms, as discussed below. For the remaining claim terms, I have
`
`been asked to give and apply in my analysis their plain and ordinary meaning, as
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention (e.g., late 2008) having taken into consideration the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of the’646 patent.
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`A.
`“glitch”
`33. The term “glitch” appears in claim 20. I have been asked to interpret
`
`this term to include “a datum that is outside of an acceptable range.”
`
`B.
`“a change in the dominant axis”
`34. The term “a change in the dominant axis” appears in claim 20. I have
`
`been asked to interpret this term to include “at least a change in acceleration
`
`measured along the dominant axis.”
`
`C.
`“dominate axis logic to determine an idle sample value”
`35. The term “dominate axis logic to determine an idle sample value”
`
`appears in claim 20. I have been asked to interpret this term to include “hardware,
`
`software, or both that determines an idle sample value.”
`
`36.
`
`I have also been asked to consider and apply the following alternative
`
`interpretation of this term:
`
`Function: determine an idle sample value;
`
`Structure: software, hardware, or combination thereof to perform the
`
`actions in blocks 515 and 520.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 62
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`“power logic to move the device from the inactive state to an
`active state upon detection of a change in the dominant axis which
`is the axis experiencing the largest effect of gravity”
`37. The term “power logic to move the device from the inactive state to
`
`an active state upon detection of a change in the dominant axis which is the axis
`
`experiencing the largest effect of gravity” appears in claim 20. I have been asked to
`
`interpret this term to include “hardware, software, or both that wakes up the device
`
`when the motion of the device indicates a change in the dominant axis of the
`
`device or moves the device from the inactive state to an active state upon detection
`
`of a change in the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the largest effect of
`
`gravity.”
`
`38.
`
`I have also been asked to consider and apply the following alternative
`
`interpretation of this term:
`
`Function: move the device from the inactive state to an active state upon
`
`detection of a change in the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the
`
`largest effect of gravity;
`
`Structure: software, hardware, or combination thereof to perform actions in
`
`block 545.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 62
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`“device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active
`state, a preset customized state”
`39. The term “device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last
`
`active state, a preset customized state” appears in claim 22. I have been asked to
`
`interpret this term to include “hardware, software, or both that restores the device
`
`to one of: a last active state, a preset customized state.”
`
`40.
`
` I have also been asked to consider and apply the following alternative
`
`interpretation of this term:
`
`Function: restore the device to one of: a last active state, a preset
`
`customized state;
`
`Structure: software, hardware, or combination thereof to perform actions of
`
`block 340.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 (“Pasolini”) (Ex. 1003)
`41.
` Pasolini generally describes a device that uses an inertial sensor (e.g.,
`
`accelerometer) to detect states of motion (e.g., the device is picked up by a user)
`
`and rest. (Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:9-11, 1:66-67.) The device may be a portable
`
`electronic apparatus 1, such as a palm-top computer or a different type of device.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 2:26-30.)
`
`42. Pasolini recognizes the importance of reducing power consumption
`
`for such portable devices:
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`As is known, reduction of power consumption is one of the
`main objectives in any sector of modern microelectronics. In
`some fields, however, power consumption has an even
`determining importance in the evaluation the quality of a
`product. Many widely used electronic devices, in fact, are
`provided with a stand-alone battery supply and are normally
`disconnected from the mains supply; this is, for example, the
`case of cell phones and cordless phones, of palm-top computers
`and radio frequency pointer devices for computers (mouses and
`trackballs). It is clear that the reduction both of supply voltages
`and of currents advantageously involves an increase in the
`autonomy of the device and hence a greater convenience of use.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 1:13-24.)
`
`43. According to Pasolini, to conserve battery power, such devices may
`
`enter a “stand-by” mode:
`
`Some devices, after a pre-determined interval of inactivity, can
`be automatically set in a wait state (stand-by), in which all the
`functions not immediately necessary are deactivated; for
`example, in a cell phone it is possible to turn off the screen and
`all the circuitry that is not involved in identifying an incoming
`call.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 1:33-38.)
`
`44. However, according to Pasolini, placing such a device in stand-by
`
`mode may be inconvenient for the user because the user will need to manually
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`wake up the device, which may require several steps and waiting time:
`
`In this case, however, one drawback lies in that the device is not
`immediately ready for use: the user must in fact pick up the
`device, press the reactivation key and wait for the extinction of
`a transient in which the functions previously deactivated are
`restored. Although this transient is relatively brief (at the most
`in the region of one second), it is not however negligible and in
`some cases can render the device altogether inefficient. For
`example, in a radio frequency mouse, the restore time would be
`so long that the advantage of having low consumption in stand-
`by would be basically nullified by the lower efficiency of use.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 1:47-56.)
`
`45. To address this issue, Pasolini describes a device for automatic
`
`detection of states of motion and rest using an “activation device 10,” which
`
`detects static and dynamic motion along three axes:
`
`The activation device 10, the structure of which will be
`described in detail hereinafter, detects the accelerations to
`which the apparatus 1 is subjected, preferably along a first axis
`X, a second axis Y and a third axis Z orthogonal to one another
`and fixed to the apparatus 1. More precisely, the activation
`device 10 detects both the static accelerations (due to constant
`forces, like the force of gravity) and dynamic accelerations (due
`to non-constant forces) to which the apparatus 1 is subjected.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 2:66-3:7.) The static accelerations are subtracted from current
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`accelerometer data to determine accelerations due to variable forces (dynamic
`
`accelerations), to ensure that apparatus 1 is activated only when it is picked up to
`
`be used. (Ex. 1003, 4:38-49, 5:10-14, FIG. 3.)
`
`46. When dynamic accelerations exceed a pre-determined threshold,
`
`activation device 10 wakes up portable electronic apparatus 1:
`
`When the dynamic accelerations directed along at least one of
`the three axes X, Y, Z exceed a pre-determined threshold, the
`activation device 10 generates an activation pulse WU thus
`bringing its output 10 a to an activation logic value. In the
`presence of an activation pulse WU, any possible standby
`pulses STBY are ignored, and the control unit 3, the screen 6,
`the I/O unit 5 and the memory 4 are set in the active state.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 3:17-23.)
`
`signals AXD, AYD, AZD are
`The dynamic-acceleration
`exclusively correlated to the accelerations due to variable forces
`and, in practice, are different from zero only when the apparatus
`1 is moved, i.e., when it is picked up to be used. Consequently,
`at the precise moment when the user picks up the apparatus 1,
`at least one of the dynamic-acceleration signals AXD, AYD, AZD
`exceeds the threshold acceleration ATH of the respective
`threshold comparator 36, and an activation pulse WU is
`supplied, which brings the control unit 3, the memory 4, the I/O
`unit 5 and the screen 6 back into the active state.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 5:31-41.)
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`47. Accordingly, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known, picking up apparatus 1 would have caused the accelerometer to measure
`
`dynamic accelerations in the axis most aligned and affected by gravity. For
`
`example, if apparatus 1 is oriented such that axis X is most aligned with gravity
`
`while in stand-by mode, picking up apparatus 1 would have caused the
`
`accelerometer to detect dynamic accelerations along axis X, thereby causing
`
`activation device 10 to wake up the device from standby mode. A similar outcome
`
`would result if apparatus 1 was instead oriented so that either axis Y or axis Z is
`
`the axis most aligned with gravity.
`
`B. Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer, Ron Goldman, Sun
`Microsystems Inc. Dated February 23, 2007 (“Goldman”) (Ex.
`1004)
`48. Goldman is a 2007 publication by Sun Microsystems related to its Sun
`
`SPOT mobile electronic device, which includes an LIS3L02AQ accelerometer.
`
`(See Ex. 1004, 1.) In particular, Goldman explains that the “SPOT library includes
`
`both the IAccelerometer3D interface that defines the basic methods that any three-
`
`axis accelerometer should support, and the LIS3L02AQAccelerometer class that
`
`implements that interface along with several other methods specific to the
`
`LIS3L02AQ.” (See Ex. 1004, 1.) The interface, methods, classes, etc., are
`
`implemented using Sun’s well known and widely used Java programming
`
`language, and provide basic accelerometer functions, including functions to read
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`the current acceleration along each of the three axes, returning the current relative
`
`acceleration, measuring tilt, etc. (See Ex. 1004, 1.) Goldman also provides sample
`
`Java code related to