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
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent No. 8,872,646
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. IRFAN ESSA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1018
`Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.
`IPR2018-01664
`
`Page 1 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 2
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 4
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23 .............................................................................. 5
`
`VI. SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
`ORIGINALLY FILED DISCLOSURE OF THE ’622 PATENT ................... 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“glitch” ................................................................................................11
`
`“motion data” ......................................................................................11
`
`“a change in the dominant axis” ..........................................................12
`
`“dominate axis logic to . . . determine an idle sample value” .............12
`
`“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” ..............13
`
`“device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active
`state, a preset customized state” ..........................................................14
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................14
`
`A. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0268246 (“Hyatt”) (Ex.
`1017) ....................................................................................................15
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,180,502 (“Marvit”) (Ex. 1015) ..............................18
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Fabio”) (Ex. 1016) ................................21
`
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23 .................................................21
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`A. McMahan Discloses “the One or More Glitches Each Indicating
`a Respective Detected Motion That is Both Within an
`Operational Range of the Motion Sensor and Outside an
`Acceptable Range” ..............................................................................22
`
`B. Hyatt Also Discloses “the One or More Glitches Each
`Indicating a Respective Detected Motion That is Both Within
`an Operational Range of the Motion Sensor and Outside an
`Acceptable Range” ..............................................................................25
`
`C. McMahan Discloses “the Motion Data Containing Less Data as
`a Result of the Removal of the One or More Glitches from the
`Motion Data” .......................................................................................30
`
`D. Hyatt Also Discloses “the Motion Data Containing Less Data as
`a Result of the Removal of the One or More Glitches from the
`Motion Data” .......................................................................................35
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Reasons to Combine Hyatt with Pasolini, Goldman, Mizell, and
`Park .....................................................................................................37
`
`The Combination of Pasolini and Marvit Discloses “A
`Dominant Axis Logic to Determine a Dominant Axis” ......................40
`
`The Combination of Pasolini and Fabio Also Discloses “A
`Dominant Axis Logic to Determine a Dominant Axis” ......................49
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`I, Dr. Irfan Essa, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`As I testified in my declaration signed September 5, 2018, which I
`
`understand has been labeled as Exhibit 1010 in this proceeding, I have been
`
`retained by Samsung Electronics America Inc. (“Petitioner”) as an independent
`
`expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”). I previously provided testimony in this proceeding in my
`
`September 5, 2018 declaration. (See Ex. 1010.) As with my previous work
`
`relating to this proceeding, no part of my compensation is 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. Relevant
`
`aspects of my qualifications were provided in my September 5, 2018 declaration.
`
`(See id. at ¶¶ 3-8; see also Ex. 1011 (curriculum vitae).)
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether substitute claim 23 included
`
`with Patent Owner Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A’s (“Uniloc”) Motion to Amend filed
`
`June 11, 2019, are supported by the originally filed specification of the ’646 patent
`
`and whether certain references disclose or suggest the features recited in the
`
`substitute claim. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`3.
`The opinions in this Declaration are based on the documents I
`
`reviewed, my knowledge and experience, and professional judgment. In forming
`
`my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• 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);
`
`• 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); U.S. Patent No. 7,180,502 (“Marvit”) (Ex. 1015);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Fabio”) (Ex. 1016);
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`• U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0268246 (“Hyatt”) (Ex. 1017);
`
`• Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Claim 22 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,566,960 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (“Mot.”) (Paper 10);
`
`• any materials I refer to in my September 5, 2018 declaration; and
`
`• any other materials I refer to in this Declaration in support of my
`
`opinions.
`
`4.
`
`All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`these opinions, I have also drawn on my knowledge and experience in the field of
`
`systems that use signals and sensory data (e.g., accelerometer data), and rely on my
`
`opinions and discussions set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration. My
`
`opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood the claims (both the original claims and
`
`substitute claims 23) 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`As discussed in detail below, based on my experience and expertise, it
`
`5.
`
`is my opinion that substitute claim 23 is not supported by the originally-filed
`
`specification of the ’646 patent and that certain references disclose or suggest all
`
`the features recited in substitute claim 23.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`6.
`As I previously indicated in my September 5, 2018 declaration, 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 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.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`7.
`In this section, I repeat the terminology and brief overview of key
`
`technologies that I presented in my September 5, 2018 declaration. The
`
`terminology and technologies discussed in this section were widely known before
`
`late 2008. This section is not intended to be technically comprehensive, but rather
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`provide a foundation for better understanding the ’646 patent, the substitute claim,
`
`and the prior art.
`
`8.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`V.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23
`9.
`
`I previously provided an overview of the ’646 patent in my September
`
`5, 2018 declaration. (Ex. 1010 at 6-13.) My understanding of the ’646 patent, as
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`described in my prior declaration, remain unchanged, and is incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has proposed the following amended
`
`claim 23 to substitute for claim 22, which depends from claim 20 (with additions
`
`as compared to the original claims in bold underlines and deletions in double
`
`brackets):
`
`23. A system to wake up a mobile device comprising:
`
`[23.1] a motion sensor to detect motion along three axes and [[generation]]
`
`generate motion data;
`
`[23.2] 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,
`
`the one or more glitches each indicating a respective detected motion
`
`that is both within an operational range of the motion sensor and
`
`outside an acceptable range,
`
`the motion data containing less data as a result of the removal of the one
`
`or more glitches from the motion data;
`
`[23.3] a dominant axis logic to determine a dominant axis and determine an
`
`idle sample value comprising an average of acceleration over a sample period
`
`along [[a]] the dominant axis, the dominant axis defined as an axis with a largest
`
`effect of gravity among the three axes; [[and]]
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`[23.4] 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; and
`
`[23.5] a device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active state, a
`
`preset customized state.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that the preamble and claim limitations 23.1, 23.4, and
`
`23.5 are substantively the same as in claim 22. Therefore, my opinions and
`
`analysis with respect to these limitations remain unchanged from my September 5,
`
`2018 declaration, and are incorporated herein by reference. (Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 54-129.)
`
`12. As discussed in detail below, based on my experience and expertise, it
`
`is my opinion that claim limitation 23.2 is not supported by the originally-filed
`
`specification of the ’646 patent. It is also my opinion that claim limitation 23.2 is
`
`disclosed or suggested by McMahan or Hyatt. Additionally, it is my opinion that
`
`claim limitation 23.3 is disclosed or suggested by Marvit or Fabio.
`
`VI. SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
`ORIGINALLY FILED DISCLOSURE OF THE ’622 PATENT
`13.
`
`I understand that substitute claim 23 requires that “the one or more
`
`glitches each indicating a respective detected motion that is both within an
`
`operational range of the motion sensor and outside an acceptable range.”
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion the originally-filed disclosure for the ’646 patent does
`
`not provide sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`immediately discern the “within an operational range” limitation that appears in
`
`substitute claim 23.
`
`15. The originally-filed disclosure describes examples of “glitches” as
`
`“data outside a pre-determined range of acceptable data” (Ex. 1002, pp. 12-13, ¶
`
`21), “datum that indicates a motion outside an acceptable range” (id., pp. 14-15, ¶
`
`52), and “unacceptable motion data” (id., p.15, ¶ 56). A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood these examples as describing “outside an acceptable
`
`range,” as claimed. These examples do not consider nor specify whether the
`
`motion data is “within an operational range of the motion sensor” or outside the
`
`operational range, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have discerned
`
`from these examples the limitation “within an operational range of the motion
`
`sensor.” Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art having read the disclosure
`
`would have understood that motion data outside the operational range of the sensor
`
`is unacceptable data, and must be removed in order for the system to work
`
`properly, as I discuss below.
`
`16. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that data
`
`outside the operational range of a motion sensor are not accurate indications of
`
`detected motions. This is because when operating outside the operational range, a
`
`motion sensor may not behave in accordance with the sensor’s specification (e.g.,
`
`not able to accurately detect velocity/acceleration). Thus, a person of ordinary
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`skill in the art would have known that data outside a motion sensor’s operational
`
`range are “unacceptable motion data,” and should be discarded, ignored, or
`
`removed. (Id., p.15, ¶ 56.) Not removing motion data outside the operational
`
`range of the motion sensor would cause inaccurate or unintentional motion sensor
`
`output to wake up the device, contrary to the teachings of the original disclosure.
`
`17.
`
`Indeed, the originally-filed disclosure contains language that is
`
`inconsistent with removing motion data that is within the operational range of the
`
`motion sensor but not motion data outside the operational range of the sensor. The
`
`original disclosure teaches the removal of motion data that “is extremely unlikely
`
`if not impossible.” (Ex. 1002, pp. 12-13, ¶ 21 (emphasis added)), “abnormal
`
`accelerometer reading(s),” and motion data indicative of “accelerometer or sensor
`
`is malfunctioning” (id., pp. 13, ¶ 21), which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood to include motion data outside the operational range of the
`
`motion sensor. The originally-filed disclosure further explains that the “present
`
`invention provides a method and system to wake up a device due to motion,” but
`
`only if “the motion data indicates a real motion.” (Ex. 1002, p. 3, ¶ 3.) If the
`
`motion data does not indicate a real motion, it is discarded to avoid waking up the
`
`device at the wrong time. (Id. at pp. 5, ¶¶ 12 1:59-63, 2:46-51, 3:13-37, 6:25-7:3.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that motion data
`
`outside the operational range of the motion sensor is not an accurate indication of
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`real motion, and thus, in accordance with the original disclosure of the ’646 patent,
`
`should be removed.
`
`18. Thus, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have understood the above disclosure to describe glitches as “within an operational
`
`range.” In fact, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`
`counterintuitive and counterproductive to not remove data outside the operational
`
`range of the motion sensor.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`19.
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of the’646 patent.
`
`A.
`“glitch”
`21. This term appears in claim 20 and substitute claim 23. In forming my
`
`opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I was asked to interpret this
`
`term as it appears in claim 20 to include “a datum that is outside of an acceptable
`
`range.” (Ex. 1010 at ¶ 33.)
`
`22. However, in this Declaration, for substitute claim 23, I have been
`
`asked to apply the plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim phrase “one or more glitches . . . the one or more
`
`glitches each indicating a respective detected motion that is both within an
`
`operational range of the motion sensor and outside an acceptable range,” as recited
`
`in substitute claim 23.
`
`B.
`“motion data”
`23. This term appears in claim 20 and substitute claim 23. In forming my
`
`opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I was asked to apply in my
`
`analysis the term’s 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.
`
`24. For this Declaration, I have been asked to interpret this term to
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`include “data generated by the motion sensor,” which is consistent with my
`
`understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of this term.
`
`C.
`“a change in the dominant axis”
`25. This term appears in claim 20 and substitute claim 23. In forming my
`
`opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I was asked to interpret this
`
`term to include “at least a change in acceleration measured along the dominant
`
`axis.” (Id. at ¶ 34.) For this Declaration, I was asked to interpret this term in the
`
`same way as in my September 5, 2018 declaration.
`
`D.
`“dominate axis logic to . . . determine an idle sample value”
`26. Claim 20 recites “dominate axis logic to determine an idle sample
`
`value.” In forming my opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I
`
`was asked to interpret this term to include “hardware, software, or both that
`
`determines an idle sample value.” (Id. at ¶ 35.)
`
`27.
`
`I was also 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.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 36.)
`
`Substitute claim 23 modifies this term to include “a dominant axis and
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`determine,” such that it reads “dominate axis logic to determine a dominate axis
`
`and determine an idle sample value.” For this Declaration, I was asked to interpret
`
`the term “dominate axis logic to . . . determine an idle sample value,” as recited in
`
`substitute claim 23, in the same ways as in my September 5, 2018 declaration.
`
`E.
`
`“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”
`28. This term appears in claim 20 and substitute claim 23. In forming my
`
`opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I was 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.” (Id., ¶ 37.)
`
`29.
`
`I was also 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 the
`
`actions in block 545.
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`(Id. at ¶ 38.)
`
`30. For this Declaration, I was asked to interpret this term in the same
`
`ways as in my September 5, 2018 declaration.
`
`F.
`
`“device state logic to restore the device to one of: a last active
`state, a preset customized state”
`31. This term appears in claim 20 and substitute claim 23. In forming my
`
`opinion set forth in my September 5, 2018 declaration, I was 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.” (Id. at ¶ 39.)
`
`32.
`
`I was also 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 the
`
`actions in block 340.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 40.)
`
`33. For this Declaration, I was asked to interpret this term in the same
`
`ways as in my September 5, 2018 declaration.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`34.
`I previously provided an overview of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
`
`Mizell, and Park in my September 5, 2018 declaration. (Ex. 1010 at 16-24.) My
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`understanding of these prior art references remain unchanged, and are incorporated
`
`herein by reference. Below are overviews of additional references that I reviewed
`
`in forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration
`
`A. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0268246 (“Hyatt”) (Ex.
`1017)
`35. Hyatt relates generally to “electronic equipment that includes motion
`
`activated . . . functions.” (Ex. 1017 ¶ 1.) Among other things, the invention
`
`includes a “motion sensor, such as accelerometer or the like, [to] detect[] motion of
`
`the [electronic equipment]” (id. ¶ 7) and a “motion signal processing circuit
`
`operatively to provide a motion signal indicative of duration of the motion,
`
`amplitude of the motion, and/or frequency of the motion.” (Id. ¶ 12.)
`
`36. The “motion sensor” detects motion in the x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis.
`
`(Id. ¶ 46.) The detected motion is provided to the “motion signal processing
`
`circuit” to determine “whether the motion is intended motion or incidental motion
`
`(e.g., a slight bounce from walking or riding in a car).” (Id.) “If the motion is
`
`determined to be intended motion, the intended motion is provided to a control
`
`circuit,” which performs the function corresponding to the intended motion. (Id.)
`
`37. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2 of Hyatt below, the “motion sensor 60
`
`produces an output indicative of motion.” (Id. at ¶ 58.) “This output is provided to
`
`the motion signal processing circuit 62 that processes and conditions the signal
`
`prior to being input to the control circuit 42.” (Id.)
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2 (annotated).)
`
`38.
`
`“The motion signal processing circuit 62 may “filter the output of the
`
`motion sensor 60 or otherwise . . . condition the output using known techniques
`
`such that the indication of motion or an appropriate signal to represent motion to
`
`the control circuit 42 only is provided in instances where the user decidedly moves
`
`the mobile phone 10 in a prescribed manner.” (Id.) “Such motion [in a prescribed
`
`manner] is referred to as intended motion.” (Id.)
`
`39.
`
`“The motion signal processing circuit 62 may block from the control
`
`circuit 42 signals representing brief or casual movement of the [device], e.g., a
`
`dead zone where slight movement of the [device], such as a result of being carried
`
`by a user while walking, bouncing in a moving car, etc., is not registered as an
`
`intended motion.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`40. To “block from the control circuit” signals not indicative of “intended
`
`motion,” “motion signal processing circuits 62a, 62b, 62c . . . includes a low pass
`
`filter 64 and either a threshold detector 66, amplitude detector 68, or frequency
`
`detector 70,” as shown in Figure 3-5 of Hyatt below. (Id. ¶¶ 58-59.)
`
`
`
`41.
`
`“The low pass filter 64 removes or blocks signals representing casual
`
`motions or noise or spurious signals representing brief, unintended movement of
`
`the mobile phone 10 or casual movement of the mobile phone, such as may occur
`
`during walking or bouncing in a moving vehicle.” (Id. ¶ 59 (emphasis added).)
`
`42. The “threshold detector 66” detects the duration of a motion,
`
`“represented by [the] pulse width of [the] signal input.” (Id.) “[T]he cutoff or
`
`distinguishing duration of pulse widths . . . between intended motion and casual
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`motion or noise may be from about a fraction of a second to up to three or four
`
`seconds.” (Id.)
`
`43. The “amplitude detector 68” distinguishes between “intended or
`
`prescribed motion” and “casual motion or noise” based on amplitude of the signal.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 60.) “For example, casual motion or noise may produce a relatively low
`
`amplitude signal . . . , [whereas] intended or prescribed motion may produce a
`
`relatively larger amplitude signal.” (Id.)
`
`44. The “frequency detector 70” detects frequency of the signal wherein
`
`“a relatively low frequency signal” indicates “casual motion or noise” and “a
`
`relatively higher frequency signal” indicates “intended motion.” (Id. ¶ 61.)
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,180,502 (“Marvit”) (Ex. 1015)
`45. Marvit is directed to “a handheld device with [sic] a motion
`
`interface.” (Ex. 1015 at 1:6-8.) Among other things, Marvit teaches “a handheld
`
`device capable of recognizing and amplifying movement of a motion input in a
`
`preferred direction while minimizing movement of the motion input in other
`
`directions” to enhance “a user’s ability to take advantage of motion interfaces and
`
`to “filter out user-induced noise and unintended movements.” (Id. at 1:57-65.)
`
`46. Marvit’s device includes accelerometers to “detect[] movement of the
`
`device along an x-axis, . . . a y-axis and . . . a z-axis.” (Id. at 5:3-9.) In
`
`combination, these accelerometers “are able to detect rotation and translation of
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`
`device 10.” (Id. at 5:9-12.)
`
`47. Marvit recognizes that some “user interface function may utilize input
`
`motion along one axis of motion at a time. For example, a device application “may
`
`allow a user to scroll through a list displayed on the handheld device by moving
`
`the device along a particular axis.” (Ex. 1015 at 7:60-65.) According to Marvit,
`
`for such a function, “[i]t may be very difficult for a user to constrain the motion of
`
`the device to that particular axis as desired. In other words, some user generated
`
`device rotation or movement along another axis may be difficult to avoid.” (Id. at
`
`7:65-8:2.) To solve this problem, Marvit teaches that “the device may include
`
`preferred motion selection including the selection and amplification of a
`
`dominant motion and the minimization of movement in other directions or axes.”
`
`(Id. at 8:2-5 (emphasis added).)
`
`48. Specifically, Marvit discloses that “dominant motion” may be selected
`
`based on the axes experiencing “greater . . . amount of movement” or “magnitude
`
`of acceleration,” among other things. (Id. at 8:12-14.) Marvit refers to this as “a
`
`dominant axis of motion.” (Id. at 8:60-61.) As shown below in Figure 6 of
`
`Marvit, the “preferred motion selection” process receives “raw [acceleration] data
`
`corresponding to movement of a handheld device.” (Id. at 8:50-53.) At step 66, “a
`
`dominant axis of motion is selected.” (Id. at 8:60-61.) At step 68a, 68b, and 68c,
`
`the axis selected as the “dominant axis of motion” is augmented. “The amount of
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`augmentation of movement in the dominant axis of motion may vary . . . according
`
`to the application being utilized or other characteristics.” (Id. at 8:67-93.)
`
`
`
`49. Additionally, Marvit discloses that “[m]ovement along axes other than
`
`the dominant axis of motion may be minimized . . . [or] ignored by a particular
`
`application in use.” (Id. at 9:5-8.) Marvit teaches that doing so would “allow the
`
`handheld device or applications running on the device, to filter out undesired, user-
`
`induced noise.” (Id. at 8:33-37.)
`
`50. Marvit further discloses that its teachings regarding “dominant axis of
`
`motion” “may also be applied to rotational motion of the device . . . in the same
`
`manner as motion along an axis . . . with respect to translational motion,” such that
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 57
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646
`“rotation around another axis (that is not dominant rotation) may be
`
`minimized.” (Id. at 8:42-49.)
`
`C.