UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,712,723
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 3 
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 3 
`III. 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 3 
`V. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 4 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 6 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`The “Logic” Terms ............................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`“Dominant Axis” .................................................................................. 8 
`C. 
`“Cadence Window” .............................................................................. 8 
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................ 8 
`A. 
`The ’723 Patent .................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 10 
`C. 
`Tamura ................................................................................................ 11 
`D. 
`Fabio ................................................................................................... 13 
`E. 
`Pasolini ............................................................................................... 17 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS .................................. 17 
`A.  Ground 1: Tamura and Fabio Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 10-
`12, and 14-17 ...................................................................................... 17 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 30 
`3. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 31 
`4. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 35 
`5. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 35 
`6. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 36 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`7. 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 39 
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 39 
`8. 
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 41 
`9. 
`Ground 2: Tamura, Fabio, and Pasolini Render Obvious
`Claims 3, 4, 13, 18, and 19 ................................................................. 43 
`1. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 43 
`2. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 46 
`3. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 50 
`4. 
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 52 
`5. 
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 52 
`Ground 3: Fabio Anticipates Claims 5, 6 and 7 ................................ 53 
`1. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 53 
`2. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 60 
`3. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 64 
`D.  Ground 4: Tamura, Fabio, Pasolini, and Richardson Render
`Obvious Claims 5, 6 and 7 ................................................................. 65 
`1. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 65 
`2. 
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 67 
`X.  ANY ARGUMENT FOR A DISCRETIONARY DENIAL SHOULD
`BE REJECTED ............................................................................................. 68 
`XI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 71 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Irfan Essa
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/018,321, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0010699 (“Tamura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Pasolini”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 (“Richardson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,749,545 (“Gnatjuk”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,313,380 (“Zalewski”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0085870 (“Hinckley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,002 (“Choi”)
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`
`1 Citations to U.S. patents are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-7 and 10-19 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,712,723 (“the ’723 patent,” Ex. 1001). According to PTO records, the ’723
`
`Patent is assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, the challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following as the real parties-in-interest: Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’723 patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-00650 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00737 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00364 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-01629
`
`(W.D. Wa.)
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-
`
`
`
`02918 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`The ’723 Patent has been challenged in the following IPRs:
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-00389. The Board
`
`instituted trial in this proceeding on June 27, 2018.
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-01027
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-
`
`
`
`
`
`01458
`
`Petitioner also identifies the following administrative matters involving
`
`patents that are in the same family as the ’723 patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-00424 (involving
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902 (“the ’902 patent”))
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-01028 (involving the
`
`’902 patent)
`
`HTC Corp. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-01631 (involving the
`
`’902 patent)
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`
`IPR2018-01653 (involving the ’902 patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-00387 (involving
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508 (“the ’508 patent”))
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-01026 (involving the
`
`’508 patent)
`
`HTC Corp. v. Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-01589 (involving the ’508
`
`patent)
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-01577 (involving
`
`the ’508 patent)
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing an IPR challenging certain claims of the’508
`
`patent.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224). Backup Counsel: (1) Joseph
`
`E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Chetan Bansal (Limited Recognition No. L0667).
`
`Service Information: Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC
`
`20005, Tel: (202) 551-1700, Fax: (202) 551-1705, E-mail: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’723 patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`below.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Claims 1-7 and 10-19 of the ’723 patent should be cancelled as unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 10-12, and 14-17 are obvious under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0010699 (“Tamura”)
`
`(Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 13, 18, and 19 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in view of Tamura, Fabio, and U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 (“Pasolini”)
`
`(Ex. 1008);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 5-7 are anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`
`Fabio; and
`
`Ground 4: Claims 4 and 19 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Tamura, Fabio, Pasolini, and U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 (“Richardson”)
`
`(Ex. 1009).
`
`The ’723 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 13/018,321, filed on
`
`January 31, 2011, which claims priority to U.S. Application No. 12/694,135 filed
`
`on January 26, 2010, now the ’902 patent, which claims priority to U.S.
`
`Application No. 11/644,455 (“the ’455 application”), filed on December 22, 2006,
`
`now the ’508 patent.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Tamura was filed on February 28, 2005 and published on January 19, 2006.
`
`Therefore, it is prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`Both Fabio and Pasolini were filed on October 2, 2006 and are prior art at least
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Tamura and Fabio were not considered by the Patent Office during
`
`prosecution. (See Ex. 1001 at 1-2.) While Pasolini was considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution, Pasolini is being presented only for certain
`
`dependent claims. (See infra Sections IX.B, IX.D.) Moreover, Pasolini was not
`
`presented to the Patent Office in combination with Tamura and Fabio like in this
`
`Petition. Richardson issued on November 2, 1999 and is prior art at least under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). While Richardson is listed on the cover of the ’723
`
`patent, the prosecution history does not include any discussion suggesting that
`
`Richardson was considered by the Examiner for claims 4 and 19 of the ’723 patent.
`
`Moreover, Richardson was not presented to the Patent Office in combination with
`
`Tamura, Fabio, and Pasolini like in this Petition. Nor did the Examiner have the
`
`benefit of the testimony of Dr. Essa. Accordingly, the Board should consider
`
`Pasolini and Richardson, and the associated grounds proposed in this Petition.
`
`Furthermore, while the Board considered Fabio and Pasolini, and instituted
`
`trial in IPR2018-00389 based on these references, the Board should consider and
`
`adopt all of the grounds proposed in this Petition for reasons discussed below in
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`Section X.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’723 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or the equivalent and at least two
`
`years of experience working in hardware and/or software design related to human
`
`activity monitoring and sensing systems. More education can substitute for
`
`practical experience and vice versa. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶13-14.)2
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`This Petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, because the claim
`
`constructions proposed herein are based on the BRI, they do not necessarily apply
`
`to other proceedings that use different claim construction standards, including
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Irfan Essa (Ex. 1002), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’723 patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 3-8.)
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00650
`
`(E.D. Tex.). See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00569, Paper 9 at 2 (PTAB 2013). Therefore, Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different claim constructions in those other proceedings. For terms not
`
`addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is necessary for
`
`this proceeding.3
`
`A. The “Logic” Terms
`The challenged claims include claim limitations reciting the term “logic”:
`
`“dominant axis logic” (claim 11), “counting logic” (claim 11), and “cadence logic”
`
`(claim 11). In IPR2018-00389, the Board did not find that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to
`
`these claim terms or that a construction of these terms is necessary. See Apple Inc.
`
`v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2018-00389, Paper No. 7 at 6-9 (June 27, 2018).
`
`Therefore, Petitioner does not raise this issue here.4
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the
`
`statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`4 Petitioner reserves the right to assert in district court that the claim limitations
`
`directed to “logic” invoke § 112 ¶ 6 but fail to meet the definiteness requirement of
`
`§ 112 ¶ 2.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`B.
`“Dominant Axis”
`This term appears in at least claims 1, 11, and 14. The ’723 patent states that
`
`as the orientation of the device or the inertial sensor attached to or embedded in the
`
`device changes, “the axis most influenced by gravity” changes. (Ex.1001 at 6:15-
`
`29.) Therefore, the dominant axis setting logic 140 sets the “dominant axis” to
`
`“the axis most influenced by gravity.” (Id. at 6:30-35.) Accordingly, the term
`
`“dominant axis” should be construed as the “axis most influenced by gravity.” The
`
`Board has previously agreed with this construction. See Apple Inc., IPR2018-
`
`00389, Paper No. 7 at 9-10.
`
`C.
`“Cadence Window”
`This term appears in at least claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17. The ’723
`
`patent defines this term as “a window of time since a last step was counted that is
`
`looked at to detect a new step.” (Ex.1001 at 4:5-7.) Therefore, “cadence window”
`
`should be construed as “a window of time since a last step was counted that is
`
`looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’723 Patent
`The ’723 patent relates to monitoring and counting periodic human motions,
`
`such as steps. (Ex. 1001 at 1:12-14; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶15-21.) The ’723 patent states
`
`that inertial sensors (e.g., accelerometers) are used in step counting devices
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`allowing an individual to track the number of daily steps. (Id. at 1:18-29.)
`
`According to the ’723 patent, the step counting devices suffer from certain
`
`problems. (Id. at 1:29-43.)
`
`The claims of the ’723 patent are directed to two separate concepts that
`
`allegedly improve conventional step counting devices. The first concept relates to
`
`“assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity.” (See, e.g., Ex.1001 at claim
`
`1.) In the ’723 patent, the dominant axis is “the axis most aligned with gravity,”
`
`which “may change over time (e.g. as the electronic device is rotated).” (Id. at
`
`6:20-25.)
`
`The second concept
`
`relates
`
`to updating a “cadence window”
`
`corresponding to the user’s step cadence. (See, e.g., Ex.1001 at claim 1.) In
`
`the’723 patent, “[a] cadence window is a window of time since a last step was
`
`counted that is looked at to detect a new step.” (Id. at 4:5-7.) Figure 6,
`
`reproduced below, shows an example method for setting a cadence window,
`
`including recognizing a step in the cadence window then adding one to the step
`
`count:
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 6.)
`
`The above discussed concepts claimed in the ’723 patent were not novel.
`
`For instance, assigning a dominant axis based on the device’s orientation was well-
`
`known as demonstrated by Tamura. The use of a cadence window that is updated
`
`to take into account a user’s cadence was also well-known as demonstrated by
`
`Fabio.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’723 patent’s prosecution is not particularly relevant to the analysis in
`
`this Petition and therefore, not discussed in detail.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`C. Tamura
`Tamura discloses a mobile terminal apparatus 1 (e.g., a “cellular phone”)
`
`that includes, among other things, a processing unit 10 and a detecting unit 20,
`
`which includes a tilt angle sensor 24. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶[0018], [0019], FIG.
`
`1; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶26-29.)
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Tamura discloses that in one application, “mobile terminal apparatus 1 is
`
`provided with the function of a pedometer.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶27; Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶[0024].) As discussed below, Tamura’s processing unit 10 uses the acceleration
`
`components detected by tilt angle sensor 24 to count a user’s steps.
`
`Tamura discloses that the “tilt angle sensor 24” has three axes: X, Y, and Z.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶28; Ex. 1005 at ¶[0021].) The “Z axis is placed in the direction of
`
`gravity.” (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0021].) The “tilt angle sensor 24 detects acceleration
`
`components in three-axis direction in accordance with the movement of the mobile
`
`terminal apparatus 1.” (Id. at ¶[0024].) The processing unit 10 utilizes the
`
`detected acceleration components to count a user’s steps. (Id. at ¶¶[0006], [0025].)
`
`More specifically, when counting steps, processing unit 10 uses “detection results
`
`along an axis within the title angle sensor 24 which most approximates the axis of
`
`gravity . . . .” (Id. at ¶¶[0025], [0006] (“the processing unit detects acceleration
`
`components of a frequency is a predetermined range, based on a detection result
`
`along an axis among the axes of the tilt angle sensor which most approximates a
`
`gravity axis, and counts the number of user’s steps.”).)
`
`Tamura recognizes that when the “tilt angle sensor 24” is moved because,
`
`for example, the mobile terminal 1 is moved, the Z axis may not remain the axis of
`
`the tilt angle sensor 24 that most approximates the axis of gravity. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶29.) Therefore, processing unit 10 performs a dynamic selection of the axis of the
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`tilt angle sensor 24 that most approximates the axis of gravity, i.e., Tamura selects
`
`one of the three axes (X, Y, Z) as the axis that most approximates the axis of
`
`gravity. (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].) Specifically, Tamura discloses that in a “dynamic
`
`state” (i.e., in the state where the mobile terminal 1 and therefore, the tilt angle
`
`sensor 24 is not stationary), the “axis [that] most approximates the axis of gravity”
`
`is “selected . . . based on changes in the resistance values of the respective axes and
`
`the calculated values of the pitch angle and the roll angle.” (Id.) The “calculated
`
`values of the pitch angle and the roll angle” represent the orientation of the tilt
`
`angle sensor 24 and are used by processing unit 10 to determine the axis of the tilt
`
`angle sensor 24 that most approximates the axis of gravity. (Ex. 1002 at ¶29; Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶[0020] (“pitch angle and the roll angle are detected by the tilt sensor 24”),
`
`¶[0021] (“As the posture of the mobile terminal apparatus 1 inclines, . . . the pitch
`
`angle and the roll angle are detected . . . .”).)
`
`D.
`Fabio
`Fabio is directed to “controlling a pedometer based on the use of inertial
`
`sensors.” (Ex. 1006 at 1:10-11; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶30-34.) An example of Fabio’s
`
`pedometer device 1 as “integrated within a portable electronic device, such as a
`
`cell phone 2” (Ex. 1006 at 2:33-36) is reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1.)
`
`Pedometer 1 includes, inter alia, an inertial sensor 3 and a control unit 5.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:34-40, FIGS. 1, 2.) “[I]nertial sensor 3 supplies at output an
`
`acceleration signal AZ” that “control unit 5 receives and processes . . . for
`
`identifying and counting a total number of valid steps NVT made by a user wearing
`
`or carrying the pedometer 1.” (Id. at 2:49-64.) The algorithm executed by control
`
`unit 5 to count the number of steps (“monitoring human activity”) is set forth in
`
`figure 3 and further details regarding this algorithm are discussed with reference to
`
`figures 4-8. (Id. at 2:17-19, 5:11-57.)
`
`Fabio’s disclosed process for counting steps based on acceleration values
`
`includes several checks to ensure the accuracy of the step count. (Ex. 1002 at ¶32.)
`
`Fabio first checks in a “step-recognition” step whether a received acceleration
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`measurement corresponds to a step. (Id.) If the step-recognition test is passed,
`
`Fabio then determines whether the recognized step is a valid step by checking
`
`whether the step meets a certain condition of regularity with respect to the previous
`
`steps. (Id.) These two checks are discussed below.
`
`Fabio teaches recognizing a step “if the acceleration signal AZ shows a
`
`positive peak, higher than a positive acceleration threshold AZP, followed by a
`
`negative peak, smaller than a negative acceleration threshold AZN.” (Ex. 1006 at
`
`4:12-21, FIG. 5.)
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 5.)
`
`Once a step is recognized, it is counted if it falls within a validation interval.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶33; Ex. 1006 at 4:12-49.) To validate the current step, control unit 5
`
`determines whether “the instant of recognition of the current step TR(K) falls
`
`within a validation interval TV.” (Id. at 4:35-37 (emphasis added).) In Figure 6
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`(reproduced below), Fabio shows a time-based representation of how its system
`
`validates whether a step occurred within a validation interval TV:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at FIG. 6 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶33.)
`
`The validation interval TV for each step is “defined with respect to the
`
`instant of recognition of the immediately preceding step TR(K-1)” and is given by
`
`the following formula:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 4:24-49.) Thus, Fabio teaches identifying whether each step falls
`
`within a window of time based on the immediately preceding step (K-1). (Ex.
`
`
`
`1002 at ¶34.)
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`E.
`Pasolini
`Pasolini is directed to “a pedometer device and to a step detection method
`
`using an algorithm for self-adaptive computation of acceleration thresholds.” (Ex.
`
`1008 at 1:10-12; Ex. 1002 at ¶35.) In one embodiment, Pasolini describes a
`
`pedometer device having an “accelerometer 2 [that] detects the component along
`
`the detection axis z of the vertical acceleration generated during the step, and
`
`produces a corresponding acceleration signal A.” (Ex. 1008 at 3:13-19.) The
`
`processing unit in the pedometer device “acquires at pre-set intervals samples of
`
`the acceleration signal A generated by the accelerometer 2, and executes
`
`appropriate processing operations for counting the number of steps.” (Id. at 3:30-
`
`41.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Tamura and Fabio Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 10-
`12, and 14-17
`1.
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`“A method of monitoring human activity using an inertial sensor,
`comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Tamura discloses this limitation. (Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶36-39.) For instance, Tamura discloses a mobile terminal apparatus 1
`
`that includes a processing unit 10 and a detecting unit 20, which includes a tilt
`
`angle sensor 24. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶[0019], FIG. 1.) The “tilt angle sensor 24
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`detects acceleration components in three-axis direction in accordance with the
`
`movement of the mobile terminal apparatus 1.” (Id. at ¶ [0024].) The “tilt angle
`
`sensor 24” in Tamura is an “inertial sensor.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶39; see also Ex. 1001
`
`at 2:23-25 (“inertial sensors may measure accelerations along a single or multiple
`
`axes.”).) Tamura discloses monitoring human activity using the “tilt angle sensor
`
`24” because it discloses “using detection results from the tilt angle sensor 24” to
`
`count the number of steps taken by the user (“human activity”). (Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶[0025].)
`
`b.
`
`“assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity based on an
`orientation of the inertial sensor;”
`Tamura discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶40-43.) Tamura discloses
`
`that the “tilt angle sensor 24” has three axes: X, Y, and Z. (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0021].)
`
`The “Z axis is placed in the direction of gravity.” (Id.) Tamura states that when
`
`counting steps, processing unit 10 uses “detection results along an axis within the
`
`title angle sensor 24 which most approximates the axis of gravity . . . .” (Id. at ¶
`
`[0025].) But when the “tilt angle sensor 24” is moved (i.e., it is a dynamic state),
`
`the Z axis may not remain the axis of the tilt angle sensor 24 that most
`
`approximates the axis of gravity. (Ex. 1002 at ¶41.)
`
`Recognizing this, processing unit 10 performs a dynamic selection of the
`
`axis of the tilt angle sensor 24 that most approximates the axis of gravity (“the
`
`dominant axis”), i.e., Tamura selects one of the three axes (X, Y, Z) of tilt angle
`18
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`sensor 24 as the “dominant axis.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶42; Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].) A
`
`POSITA would have understood that the axis that most approximates the axis of
`
`gravity is also the axis most influenced by gravity, and therefore, the “dominant
`
`axis.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶42; supra Section VII.B.) Specifically, Tamura discloses that
`
`in a “dynamic state” (i.e., in the state where the mobile terminal 1 and therefore,
`
`the tilt angle sensor 24 is not stationary), the “axis [that] most approximates the
`
`axis of gravity” is “selected . . . based on changes in the resistance values of the
`
`respective axes and the calculated values of the pitch angle and the roll angle.”
`
`(Id.) By selecting the “axis [that] most approximates the axis of gravity,” Tamura
`
`discloses “assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶42.)
`
`Tamura further discloses that the above assignment of the dominant axis is
`
`performed “based on an orientation of the inertial sensor.” (Id. at ¶43.) For
`
`instance, as discussed above, processing unit 10 selects the axis that is most
`
`approximate to the axis of gravity based on a “change[] in the . . . values of the
`
`pitch angle and the roll angle.” (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].) A POSITA would have
`
`understood that detecting a change in the value of the pitch angle and the roll angle
`
`is a determination of the change in the orientation of the tilt angle sensor 24
`
`because the orientation of the tilt angle sensor 24 controls the value of the pitch
`
`angle and the roll angle. (Ex. 1002 at ¶43 (citing Exs. 1010, 1011, 1013); Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶[0020] (“pitch angle and the roll angle are detected by the tilt sensor 24.”).)
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`c.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`“detecting a change in the orientation of the inertial sensor and
`updating the dominant axis based on the change; and”
`Tamura discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1002 at ¶44.) Tamura discloses that
`
`in a “dynamic state” (i.e., in the state where the mobile terminal 1 and therefore,
`
`the tilt angle sensor 24 is not stationary), the “axis [that] most approximates the
`
`axis of gravity” is “selected . . . based on changes in the resistance values of the
`
`respective axes and the calculated values of the pitch angle and the roll angle.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].) That is, Tamura discloses detecting “changes in the . . .
`
`calculated values of the pitch angle and the roll angle.” (Id.) Detecting such
`
`changes corresponds to “detecting a change in the orientation of the inertial
`
`sensor” because a POSITA would have understood that the orientation of the tilt
`
`angle sensor 24 (“inertial sensor”) controls the value of the pitch angle and the roll
`
`angle. (Supra Section IX.A.1(b); Ex. 1002 at ¶44; Ex. 1005 at ¶[0020] (“pitch
`
`angle and the roll angle are detected by the tilt sensor 24.”) Tamura further
`
`discloses “updating the dominant axis based on the change” because, as discussed
`
`above, Tamura discloses selecting the dominant axis based on changes in the pitch
`
`angle and the roll angle. (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].)
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`d.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`“counting periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations
`relative to the dominant axis by counting the periodic human
`motions when accelerations showing a motion cycle that meets
`motion criteria is detected within a cadence window; and”
`Tamura in combination with Fabio discloses or suggests this limitation. (Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶45-55.) For instance, Tamura discloses that the tilt angle sensor detects
`
`acceleration components along its three axes. (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶[0021], [0024].)
`
`These detected “acceleration components” are analyzed by processing unit 10 to
`
`“count the number of user’s steps.” (Id. at ¶[0025].) But for counting the user’s
`
`steps, processing unit 10 uses the detected acceleration components “along an axis
`
`within the tilt angle sensor 24 which most approximates the axis of gravity . . . .”
`
`(Id.) Therefore, Tamura discloses counting the user’s steps (“periodic human
`
`motions”) by monitoring accelerations relative to the axis of the tilt angle sensor 24
`
`that most approximates the axis of gravity, i.e., the “dominant axis.” (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶45; supra Section VII.B.)
`
`While Tamura discloses using accelerations along the dominant axis to
`
`count steps, it does not disclose further details regarding how the acceleration
`
`components are processed in order to count the steps. (Ex. 1002 at ¶46.) For
`
`instance, Tamura does not disclose that steps are counted “by counting the periodic
`
`human motions when accelerations showing a motion cycle that meets motion
`
`criteria is detected within a cadence window.” As discussed below, Fabio
`
`discloses such details and a POSITA would have been motivated to implement
`21
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`Fabio’s step counting techniques in Tamura in order to improve Tamura’s step
`
`counting accuracy. (Id.)
`
`Fabio discloses a pedometer 1 that includes, inter alia, an inertial sensor