UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS INC
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`Case No. IPR2018-01757
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`THE ‘723 PATENT.................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................................... 8
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Tamura .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`B. Pasolini ............................................................................................................ 11
`
`C. Motivation to combine ................................................................................... 11
`
`D. Obviousness .................................................................................................... 14
`
`E. Anticipation ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`F. Dominant Axis ................................................................................................. 15
`
`G. Cadence Window ............................................................................................ 18
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS ................................................................................... 19
`
`A. Claim 1 “A method of monitoring human activity using an inertial sensor,
`comprising: assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity based on an
`orientation of the inertial sensor;” ................................................................. 20
`
`B. Claim 1 “detecting a change in the orientation of the inertial sensor and
`updating the dominant axis based on the change; and” ................................ 23
`
`C. Claim 1 “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” ..................................................................... 24
`
`D. Claim 1 “updating the cadence window as actual cadence changes.” .......... 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E. Claim 2 “The method of claim 1, further comprising: using acceleration
`measurements along only the dominant axis to count steps.” ...................... 28
`
`F. Claim 3 “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the motion criteria is
`a dynamic motion criterion, the dynamic motion criterion updated to reflect
`current conditions.” ........................................................................................ 28
`
`G. Claim 4 “The method of claim 3, wherein the dynamic motion criteria
`includes at least a lower threshold, wherein the lower threshold is adjusted
`based on at least one of a rolling average of accelerations and the orientation
`of the inertial sensor.” .................................................................................... 29
`
`H. Claim 4 “A method of monitoring human activity using an inertial sensor,
`comprising: buffering a plurality of periodic human motions, each periodic
`human motion comprising a motion cycle;” .................................................. 30
`
`I. Claim 5 “identifying a number of periodic human motions within an
`appropriate cadence window;” ...................................................................... 30
`
`J. Claim 5 “counting each of the periodic human motions to enable the
`monitoring of human activity; and updating the cadence window as a
`cadence of the motion cycle changes.” .......................................................... 32
`
`K. Claim 6 “The method of claim 5, further comprising: switching the device
`from the active mode to the nonactive mode when a number of expected
`periodic human motions are not identified in the appropriate cadence
`windows. ......................................................................................................... 33
`
`L. Claim 7 “The method of claim 5, further comprising: switching from a sleep
`mode to the non-active mode of operation when an acceleration is
`detected.” ....................................................................................................... 33
`
`M. Claim 10 “An inertial sensor based device, comprising:“ a dominant axis logic
`to determine an orientation of a device with respect to gravity, to assign a
`dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis when the orientation of the
`device changes; and” ...................................................................................... 33
`
`N. Claim 10 “a counting logic to count 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 a cadence logic to update
`the cadence window as actual cadence changes. ” ........................................ 33
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`O. Claim 11 “The device of claim 10, wherein: the counting logic uses
`acceleration measurements along only the dominant axis to count steps.” . 34
`
`P. claim 12 "The device of claim 10, further comprising: the cadence logic to
`update a dynamic cadence window; and the counting logic to count a
`periodic human motion when an acceleration measurement that meets
`motion criteria is taken within the cadence window.” .................................. 34
`
`Q. “The device of claim 10, further comprising: a comparator, to compare
`measurements of acceleration to dynamic motion criteria, the dynamic
`motion criteria updated to reflect current conditions; and the counting logic
`to count a periodic human motion when the measurements of acceleration
`satisfy the dynamic motion criteria.” ............................................................. 35
`
`R. Claim 14 “A non-transitory machine readable medium containing executable
`computer program instructions which, when executed by a processing
`system, cause said system to perform a method for:”................................... 35
`
`S. Claim 14 “assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity based on an
`orientation of the inertial sensor;” ................................................................. 36
`
`T. Claim 14 “detecting a change in the orientation of the inertial sensor and
`update the dominant axis based on the change; and”................................... 37
`
`U. Claim 14 “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” ..................................................................... 37
`
`V. Claim 15 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 14, which, when
`executed by the processing system, cause said system to perform the
`method further for: using acceleration measurements along only the
`dominant axis to count steps.” ....................................................................... 37
`
`W. Claim 16 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 14, which, when
`executed by the processing system, cause said system to perform the
`method further for: switching the device from an active mode to a non-active
`mode when a number of expected periodic human motions are not identified
`in the appropriate cadence windows.” .......................................................... 38
`
`X. Claim 17 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 14, which, when
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`executed by the processing system, cause said system to perform the
`method further for: maintaining a cadence window, wherein the cadence
`window is updated as an actual cadence changes; and” ............................... 41
`
`Y. Claim 17 “counting a periodic human motion when an acceleration
`measurement that meets motion criteria is within the cadence window.” .. 41
`
`Z. Claim 18 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 17, wherein at least one
`of the motion criteria is a dynamic motion criterion, the dynamic motion
`criterion updated to reflect current conditions.” ........................................... 42
`
`AA. Claim 19 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 14, wherein the dynamic
`motion criteria includes at least a lower threshold, wherein the lower
`threshold is adjusted based on at least one of a rolling average of
`accelerations and the orientation of the inertial sensor.” ............................. 42
`
`VIII.
`
`TAMURA, FABIO, PASOLINI, AND RICHARDSON COMBINATION.......................... 42
`
`A. Claim 4 “The method of claim 3, wherein the dynamic motion criteria
`includes at least a lower threshold, wherein the lower threshold is adjusted
`based on at least one of a rolling average of accelerations and the orientation
`of the inertial sensor.” .................................................................................... 43
`
`B. Claim 19 “The non-transitory machine readable medium containing
`executable computer program instructions of claim 14, wherein the dynamic
`motion criteria includes at least a lower threshold, wherein the lower
`threshold is adjusted based on at least one of a rolling average of
`accelerations and the orientation of the inertial sensor.” ............................. 43
`
`CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Uniloc to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723 (“723 Patent”). The ‘723 patent was
`
`granted January 26, 2010 based on from application 11/644,455 that was filed on
`
`December 22, 2006.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$300 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of
`
`this work. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study or the
`
`substance of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I have 25+ years of experience in the computer science industry including
`
`extensive experience with computer security, computer programming, and computer
`
`networking. I have authored 26 computer science books, including textbooks used at
`
`universities around the world. I hold a Doctor of Science in Cyber Security, as well as two
`
`masters (one in Applied Computer Science). I hold 44 different computer industry
`
`certifications, including many in networking subjects. I am experienced with multiple
`
`programming languages. I also have extensive experience in computer networking. I have
`
`extensive experience with mobile devices, including all aspects of mobile devices
`
`(hardware and software), mobile forensics, and programming for mobile devices. I am
`
`a Distinguished Speaker for the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), and a
`
`reviewer for the IEEE Security and Privacy journal, as well as a reviewer for the four
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`separate scientific journals I am also a member of the IEEE Systems and Software
`
`engineering standards committee. My CV is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $300 per hour. My compensation is
`
`not dependent in any way upon my opinions. My opinions are based solely on my
`
`independent analysis.
`
`III.
`
`THE ‘723 PATENT
`
`5.
`
`The ’723 patent is titled “Human activity monitoring device.” The ʼ723
`
`patent issued April 29, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/018,321 filed January
`
`31, 2011.
`
`6.
`
`The inventors of the ’723 patent observed that, at the time, step counting
`
`devices that utilize an inertial sensor to measure motion to detect steps generally
`
`required the user to first position the device in a limited set of orientations. In some
`
`devices, the required orientations are dictated to the user by the device. In other devices,
`
`the beginning orientation is not critical, so long as this orientation can be maintained.
`
`EX1001, 1:29-34. Further, the inventors observed that devices at the time were often
`
`confused by motion noise experienced by the device throughout a user's daily routine.
`
`The noise would cause false steps to be measured and actual steps to be missed in
`
`conventional step counting devices. Conventional step counting devices also failed to
`
`accurately measure steps for individuals who walk at a slow pace. Id., 1:35-40.
`
`Accordingly, the
`
`inventors
`
`introduced determining a rhythmic cadence and a
`
`correspondence cadence window concept that could anticipate when an expected
`
`periodic user activity is expected to occur. Id., 3:46-4:4.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`According to the invention of the ’723 Patent, a device to monitor human
`
`activity using an inertial sensor assigns a dominant axis after determining the orientation
`
`of an inertial sensor. The orientation of the inertial sensor is continuously determined,
`
`and the dominant axis is updated as the orientation of the inertial sensor changes. Id.,
`
`2:14-19. Periodic user activity in a cadence window is counted and the cadence is
`
`updated. Id., 3:46-4:4. Figure 1 from the ‘723 patent provides a general overview of the
`
`invention:
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`8.
`
`Fort the purposes of an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable meaning. The petitioner has asserted “dominant axis” should be construed
`
`
`
`as the “axis most influenced by gravity.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`The petitioner has asserted “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.”
`
`10.
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding I have applied those constructions in
`
`my analysis.
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`11.
`
`Patent claims must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. The petitioner has opined that one of ordinary skill in the art would be “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.”
`
`12.
`
`I have no disagreement with most of this definition of a POSA, and for the
`
`purposes of this declaration will accept the petitioner’s definition of a POSA. And I qualify
`
`as at least one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES
`
`13.
`
`In this section I address general issues that permeate the petition and Dr.
`
`Essa’s declaration
`
`A.
`
`Tamura
`
`14.
`
`Tamura is described as a "Mobile terminal apparatus" and further one that
`
`uses "an acceleration sensor as a tilt angle sensor and relies various applications based
`
`on this detection result. A processing unit 10 counts the number of steps of a human
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`based on acceleration components of low frequency detected by the tilt angle sensor that
`
`detects the acceleration components.”
`
`15.
`
`In fact, Tamura states "The present invention relates to mobile terminal
`
`apparatuses such as a mobile telephone and it particularly relates to a mobile terminal
`
`apparatus equipped with a function to determine azimuth". This is repeated throughout
`
`Tamura with excerpts such as "Under these circumstances, it is preferable that a tilt angle
`
`sensor be provided in a mobile terminal apparatus equipped with azimuth measuring
`
`function".
`
`16.
`
`An azimuth is defined as “The direction of a celestial object from the
`
`observer, expressed as the angular distance from the north or south point of the horizon
`
`to the point at which a vertical circle passing through the object intersects the horizon.”1
`
`Or similarly “an arc of the horizon measured between a fixed point (such as true north)
`
`and the vertical circle passing through the center of an object usually in astronomy and
`
`navigation clockwise from the north point through 360 degrees”2
`
`17.
`
`Claim 1 of Tamura states " processing unit which is connected to the
`
`magnetic sensor and the tilt angle sensor, and which determines that azimuth b
`
`performing coordinate transformation on the terrestrial magnetism components
`
`detected by said magnetic sensor, based on a detection result of said tilt angle sensor."
`
`
`1 Oxford dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/azimuth
`2 Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/azimuth
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`Tamura does determine the "user's ambulation trajectory based on the
`
`azimuth and the number of steps.” Tamura also includes a camera for determining the
`
`azimuth:
`
`19.
`
`Tamura is devoted to detecting the azimuth and displaying a view. Step
`
`counting in Tamura is merely incidental to determining location. Put simply, Tamura is
`
`not a pedometer.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Pasolini
`
`20.
`
`Pasolini is described as a "Pedometer Device and Step Detection Method
`
`using an algorithm for self-adaptive computation of acceleration thresholds" and further
`
`described as a "pedometer device for detecting and counting steps of a user on foot, an
`
`accelerometer sensor detects a vertical acceleration generated during the step"
`
`21.
`
`The entire purpose of Pasolini is step detection. Pasolini states in the
`
`summary of the invention "One embodiment of the present invention provides a
`
`pedometer device and a method for detecting and counting steps which will enable the
`
`aforesaid disadvantages and problems to be overcome."
`
`C.
`
`Motivation to combine
`
`22.
`
`Both in the petition and in Dr. Essa’s declaration, the petitioner asserts that
`
`it would have been obvious to combine Tamura with some other prior art. However, the
`
`combinations suggested are counter to the intention and purpose of the asserted prior
`
`art references.
`
`23.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Essa states “Therefore, to ensure that the step count
`
`is accurate in Tamura, a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of
`
`Tamura and Pasolini such that processing unit 10 continuously determines the orientation
`
`of tilt angle sensor 24.”
`
`24.
`
`As was already discussed, Tamura does not need more exacting step
`
`counting. The steps are used to determine an azimuth. The level of accuracy already
`
`present in Tamura of steps is more than sufficient. In fact, Tamura believed his invention
`
`already had a very high accuracy.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`25.
`
`Tamura believe he already had a “highly accurate function of a
`
`
`
`pedometer”. Furthermore, Tamura states:
`
`26.
`
`Dr. Essa asserts:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`This is incorrect. Tamura already had a highly accurate step counter. And
`
`Dr. Essa’s assertions that combining Pasolini with Tamura would have improved Tamura
`
`are unfounded. In fact, the only reason to combine Pasolini with Tamura, is to attempt to
`
`bring the two prior art references together to meet some claim limitation, and that is not
`
`something a PHOSITA would be motivated to do.
`
`28.
`
`The petitioner states “For instance, Tamura is silent on the details
`
`regarding how to count steps based on acceleration values whereas Fabio discloses rich
`
`details in this regarding. ” (sic). The petitioner is correct that Tamura does not provide
`
`details on how to count steps. This is precisely because step counting is ancillary to the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`purposes of Tamura. This actually illustrates Tamura does not need more accurate step
`
`counting, and a PHOSITA would not be motivated to combine Tamura with any other
`
`invention in order to improve the step counting.
`
`D.
`
`Obviousness
`
`29.
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 the petitioner cites are obviousness arguments.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention. I further understand that
`
`an obviousness analysis involves a review of the scope and content of the asserted prior
`
`art; the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art; and objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as long-felt need,
`
`industry praise for the invention, and skepticism of others in the field.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the following rationales, among others, may
`
`support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
`(a)
`
`the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results;
`
`(b)
`
`the simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results;
`
`(c)
`
`the use of known techniques to improve similar methods or
`
`apparatuses in the same way;
`
`(d)
`
`the application of a known technique to a known method or
`
`apparatus ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`(e)
`
`the choice of a particular solution from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(f)
`
`the use of known work in one field of endeavor in either the same
`
`field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, if the variations
`
`are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(g)
`
`the following of some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`32.
`
`However, in every case in the petition, the petitioner is taking asserted
`
`prior art that has very different purposes, neither prior art reference disclosing the claim
`
`limitation, and asserting that somehow by combining them the claim limitation is met.
`
`This is incorrect, and I disagree with the petitioner’s obviousness claims.
`
`E.
`
`Anticipation
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid as “anticipated” if each and every
`
`element of the claim as construed by the Court is found, either expressly or inherently, in
`
`a single device or method that predates the claimed invention or has been described in a
`
`single publication or patent that predates the claimed invention.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that if any claim element is not found expressly or
`
`inherently in a reference, that refence does not anticipate that claim.
`
`F.
`
`Dominant Axis
`
`35.
`
`In general, the petitioner conflates the dominant axis in the ‘723 patent with
`
`the Z axis in Fabio and Pasolini. This is incorrect for several reasons.
`
`36.
`
`In Pasolini, the only mention of orientation is
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`“For example, the main vertical axis can be identified at each acquisition
`of a new acceleration sample, block 30 of FIG. 4, so as to take into
`account variations in the orientation of the pedometer device 1, and
`consequently of the accelerometer 2 arranged inside it.”
`
`This depends entirely on the vertical axis but tries to account for “variations
`
`37.
`
`in the orientation of the pedometer device” It should be noted that Fabio, does not even
`
`mention orientation. It is clear that Pasolini is only concerned about a single axis and
`
`assumes that axis will be the main axis. This is made clear many places in Pasolini, a
`
`sample of such data is provided here:
`
`“In use, the accelerometer 2 detects the component along the detection axis z of the
`vertical acceleration generated during the step, and produces a corresponding
`acceleration signal A.”
`
`“The accelerometer 2 could be equipped with a number of axes of
`measurement, for example three mutually orthogonal axes of measurement,
`and be built, for example, as described in “3-axis Digital Output Accelerometer
`For Future Automotive Applications”, B. Vigna et al., AMAA 2004. In this case,
`according to one embodiment of the present invention, the algorithm
`implemented by the processing unit 3 envisages identifying the main vertical axis
`to be used for step detection as the axis of detection that has the highest mean
`acceleration value Accm (on account of gravity). For example, the main vertical
`axis can be identified at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample, block 30
`of FIG. 4, so as to take into account variations in the orientation of the
`pedometer device 1, and consequently of the accelerometer 2 arranged inside
`it.”
`
`38.
`
`It is clear that Pasolini did not account for changing axis, and in fact it seems
`
`likely that was not even contemplated. That is in stark contrast to the ‘723 patent wherein
`
`any direction might become dominant and detecting the currently dominant axis is crucial
`
`(note the emphasis are added).
`
`“Embodiments of the present invention are designed to monitor human activity
`using an inertial sensor. In one embodiment, a dominant axis is assigned after
`determining an orientation of an inertial sensor”
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`“In one embodiment, the dominant axis setting logic 140 determines an
`orientation of the electronic device 100 and/or the inertial sensor(s) within the
`electronic device 100. The orientation may be determined based upon the
`rolling averages of accelerations created by the rolling average logic 135.”
`
`39.
`
`This is not a trivial difference. A PHOSITA would immediately understand
`
`the significant advantages that the ‘723 patent has over Fabio or Pasolini. And in fact, the
`
`‘723 patent explicitly discussed the advantages this technology presents over the prior art.
`
`In the background of the invention section, the ‘723 inventor point out the deficiencies of
`
`the prior art stating:
`
`“Steps may be accurately counted regardless of the placement and/or orientation of
`the device on a user. Steps may be accurately counted whether the electronic device
`100 maintains a fixed orientation or changes orientation during operation. The
`electronic device 100 may be carried in a backpack, pocket, purse, hand, or
`elsewhere, and accurate steps may still be counted.”
`The petitioner completely ignores the fact that with the ‘723 patent, any
`40.
`
`axis can be the dominant axis, and that this provides a significant advantage over the prior
`
`art. The issue of the dominant axis is significant to the very claims the petitioner is
`
`challenging. Dominant axis is addressed three times in claim 1 alone, then again in claim
`
`2. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Then in claim 10 dominant axis is again discussed, in this
`
`instance four times. Then again in claim 11. Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 10.
`
`41.
`
`Claim 14 returns to explicitly discussing the dominant axis three times, and
`
`again in claim 15. Claims 16 and 17 depend on claim 14 and claim 18 depends on claim
`
`17.
`
`42.
`
`Once one understands that the dominant axis in the ‘723 patent is
`
`substantially different than the simple vertical axis in Fabio and Pasolini, and further
`
`conveys a significant advantage, then the challenged claims can be immediately seen as
`
`not being obvious nor anticipated by Fabio or Pasolini alone or in combination.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`G.
`
`Cadence Window
`
`43.
`
`Claim 1 recites “updating the cadence window as actual cadence changes.”
`
`Claim 5 recites “updating the cadence window as a cadence of the motion cycle changes.”
`
`Claim 10 recites “a cadence logic to update the cadence window as actual cadence
`
`changes.” Claim 12 states “the cadence logic to update a dynamic cadence window.”
`
`Claim 14 states “updating the cadence window as actual cadence changes.”
`
`44.
`
`The petitioner claims “Fabio discloses a pedometer 1 that 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 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.)” However, what Fabio actually states is shown here (note that portion underlined in
`
`red is the portion the petitioner cited):
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`45. What is being describes is a test of the regularity of the individual step.
`
`This is the first validation test. Even if one supposes that “regularity of the individual step”
`
`to be synonymous with “cadence”, this excerpt is not describing updating the “regularity
`
`of the individual step”. This in no way describes updating anything even analogous to the
`
`cadence window. It must also be noted that Fabio only discusses updating with respect
`
`to updating the number of steps, not anything even analogous to the cadence window.
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS
`
`46.
`
`In this section specific obviousness claims discussed in the IPR petition are
`
`addressed.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 1 “A method of monitoring human activity using an inertial
`A.
`sensor, comprising: assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity based on
`an orientation of the inertial sensor;”
`
`47.
`
`The petitioner asserts “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.)”
`
`48.
`
`However, Tamura is specifically describing the Z axis as placed in the
`
`direction of gravity. Tamura does not teach, disclose, nor even suggest that the axis is
`
`changeable. It is helpful to review what Tamura actually teaches:
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`49.
`
`It is correct that this excerpt teaches that Tamura has an X, Y, and Z axis,
`
`that are placed orthogonally to each other. Tamura further states that the Z axis is placed
`
`in the direction of gravity. However, nothing in this excerpt (nor elsewhere in Tamura)
`
`teaches one axis being dominant. Even if one ignores what Tamura actually teaches, and
`
`imagines it teaches a dominant axis, this excerpt teaches that the Z axis is fixed and won’t
`
`change.
`
`50.
`
`This is completely contrary to the ‘508 patent. The ‘508 patent states “In
`
`one embodiment, a dominant axis is assigned after determining an orientation of an
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`inertial sensor. The orientation of the inertial sensor is continuously determined, and the
`
`dominant axis is updated as the orientation of the inertial sensor changes.” This is clear,
`
`and a PHOSITA would readily understand that the dominant axis is not fixed. It changes
`
`in response to the orientation of the sensor. One of the innovations of the ‘508 patent
`
`was the ability for any axis of the sensor to be dominant based on the specific conditions
`
`at the time. In fact, the ‘508 patent makes several mentions of a “a dominant axis logic”
`
`used to determine the dominant axis.
`
`51.
`
`The petitioner asserts that “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 sensor 24 as the “dominant axis.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶42; Ex. 1005 at ¶[0025].)” It is
`
`he