UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 8,712,723
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. IRFAN ESSA
`
`Page 1 of 83
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 3
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 4
`V.
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A.
`“Dominant Axis” ................................................................................... 8
`B.
`“Cadence Window” ............................................................................... 8
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 9
`A.
`Tamura ................................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Fabio .................................................................................................... 11
`C.
`Pasolini ................................................................................................ 14
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES ALL OF THE LIMITATIONS OF
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’723 PATENT .............................. 15
`A. Ground 1: Tamura and Fabio Disclose or Suggest the
`Limitations of Claims 1, 2, 10-12, and 14-17 ..................................... 16
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 16
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 34
`3.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 36
`4.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 41
`5.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 41
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 42
`6.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 49
`7.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 49
`8.
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 51
`9.
`B. Ground 2: Tamura, Fabio, and Pasolini Disclose or Suggest the
`Limitations of Claims 3, 4, 13, 18, and 19 .......................................... 53
`1.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 53
`2.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 56
`3.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 61
`4.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 63
`5.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 63
`C. Ground 3: Fabio Discloses the Limitations of Claims 5, 6, and 7 ...... 64
`1.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 75
`D. Ground 4: Tamura, Fabio, Pasolini, and Richardson Disclose or
`Suggest the Limitations of Claims 4 and 19 ....................................... 76
`1.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 76
`2.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 79
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`ii
`
`X.
`
`
`Page 3 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`I, Dr. Irfan Essa, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)
`
`as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723 (“the
`
`’723 patent”) (Ex. 1001.) I have been asked to consider whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in claims 1-7 and 10-19 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’723 patent. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I spend on this matter. My
`
`compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`Below I summarize my qualifications, as set forth in more detail in
`
`my curriculum vitae, which I understand is provided as Exhibit 1003.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Distinguished Professor in the School of Interactive
`
`Computing / College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, an
`
`Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology. I also serve as an Associate Dean of Research for
`
`the College of Computing and Director of Interdisciplinary Research Center of
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 83
`
`

`

`Machine Learning
`
`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`at Georgia Tech. Furthermore,
`I
`am
`a Senior
`
`Researcher/Consultant at Google Research, Mountain View, CA.
`
`5.
`
`I hold a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in Engineering from the Illinois
`
`Institute of Technology earned in 1988. I also hold: (1) a Master of Science (S.M.)
`
`engineering degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earned in
`
`1990, and (2) a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology in Media Arts & Sciences, earned in 1995.
`
`6.
`
`I am a Founding Director of the Computational Perception Laboratory
`
`at Georgia Tech, which was founded in 1996. Also, I am a Founding Member of
`
`the Aware Home Research Initiative at Georgia Tech, which was founded in 1999.
`
`Additionally, I am currently serving as the Founding Director of an Institute-wide
`
`Interdisciplinary Research Center of Machine Learning at Georgia Tech, which
`
`includes over 150 faculty from all over GA Tech, in the areas related to Artificial
`
`Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Science.
`
`7. My academic and research career has focused on research and
`
`teaching in the areas of data analysis and machine intelligence, including extracted
`
`information from sensory data and using it to provide actionable and intelligent
`
`information. I have researched, developed, tested, and deployed computer systems
`
`that undertake such analysis. My work has involved visual analysis and analysis of
`
`images and videos, as well as work involving systems that deal with motion
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`analysis in general, including the use of gyroscopes and accelerometers in addition
`
`to a variety of other sensors. I have also undertaken several projects aimed at
`
`motion analysis of human movements and activities. Overall, my research
`
`concerns the foundational and fundamental aspects of signal analysis and
`
`interpretation, which applies widely to any form of sensory and signal data.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 150 scholarly and peer-reviewed articles in the
`
`leading and competitive venues in the areas of signal and motion analysis,
`
`processing, and interpretation and also hold nine patents.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`9.
`The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`knowledge regarding systems that use signals and sensory data (e.g., accelerometer
`
`data).
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the
`
`’723 patent (Ex. 1001); the prosecution file history for the ’723 patent (Ex. 1004);
`
`U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0010699 (“Tamura”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”) (Ex. 1006); U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997
`
`(“Pasolini”) (Ex. 1008); and any other materials I refer to in this declaration in
`
`support of my opinions.
`
`11. My opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims and the
`
`specification of the ’723 patent at the time of the alleged invention, which I have
`
`been asked to consider as late 2006 time frame, including December 22, 2006. My
`
`opinions reflect how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`’723 patent, the prior art to the patent, and the state of the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`12. As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that certain references
`
`disclose or suggest all the features recited in the challenged claims of the ’723
`
`patent.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`13. Based on my review of the ’723 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 2006,
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`14. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it here, during the relevant time frame,
`
`i.e., late 2006. During this time frame, I possessed at least the qualifications of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined above.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`15.
`In this section, I present the terminology and a brief overview of
`
`several key technologies that were widely known before late 2006 and that relate to
`
`the issues discussed in the subsequent sections. This section is not intended to be
`
`technically comprehensive, but
`
`rather provide a
`
`foundation
`
`for better
`
`understanding the ’723 patent and the prior art.
`
`16. As the ’723 patent acknowledges, inertial sensors have been used to
`
`monitor human activities. (Ex. 1001 at 1:27-29.) In fact, it is known that these
`
`sensors have been integrated into portable electronic devices. (Id. at 1:18-26.) For
`
`example, inertial sensors are used in step counting devices to track the number of
`
`steps a user takes. (Id. at 1:27-29.) Given that the user performs activities other
`
`than taking steps, the step counting devices, such as pedometers, have to
`
`distinguish steps from other activities that should not be counted as steps (known
`
`as “false positives”) to accurately and reliably measure the number of steps.
`
`17. A well-known method to accurately count the steps is based upon
`
`recognizing characteristics of human step (e.g., they are highly periodic). Using
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`such characteristics, actual steps can be distinguished and counted while ignoring
`
`non-step activities.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT
`18. The ’723 patent relates to monitoring and counting periodic human
`
`motions, such as steps. (Ex. 1001 at 1:12-14.) The ’723 patent states that inertial
`
`sensors (e.g., accelerometers) are used in step counting devices 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.)
`
`19. 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.)
`
`20. 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
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 83
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaaration of DDr. Irfan EEssa
`U.
`
`
`S. Patent NNo. 8,712,7723
`recognizing a stepp in the caddence winddow then aadding one
`
`to the stepp count:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at FFIG. 6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`221.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In mmy opinionn, the abovve discusssed conceppts claimeed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`’723
`
`
`
`based onn the
`
`
`
`patent wwere not
`
`
`
`novel. Foor instancee, assigninng a domiinant axis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device’ss orientatioon was weell-known
`
`
`
`as demonnstrated byy Tamura.
`
`
`
` The use
`
`of a
`
`
`
`cadencee window
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dence was that is uppdated to take into aaccount a uuser’s cad
`
`
`
`also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`well-knnown as demmonstratedd by Fabio.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CLAAIM CONSSTRUCTIION
`22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thhat a claimm subject tto inter paartes revieww receivess the
`
`V 2
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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 2006) having taken into consideration the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of the’723 patent.
`
`A.
`“Dominant Axis”
`24. The term “dominant axis” appears in claims 1, 11, 14. I have been
`
`asked to interpret this term to mean “axis most influenced by gravity.”
`
`B.
`“Cadence Window”
`25. The term “cadence window” appears in claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16,
`
`and 17. I have been asked to interpret this term to mean “a window of time since a
`
`last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 83
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. OVEERVIEW OOF THE PPRIOR ARRT
`
`
`
`
`Declaaration of DDr. Irfan EEssa
`U.
`
`
`S. Patent NNo. 8,712,7723
`
`
`
`
`A.
`Tamura
`
`
`26. Tamuura disclo
`
`
`
`
`atus 1 (e.nal apparases a mobbile termin
`
`
`
`g., a “cel
`
`lular
`
`V 2
`
`
`
`phone”)) that incluudes, amonng other thiings, a proccessing unnit 10 and aa detectingg unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20, which includees a tilt anggle sensor
`
`
`
`
`
`24. (See,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.g., Ex. 11005 at ¶¶[[0018], [00019],
`
`
`
`FIG. 1.))
`
`
`
`(Id. at FFIG. 1.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`27. Tamura discloses that in one application, “mobile terminal apparatus 1
`
`is provided with the function of a pedometer.” (Id. 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.
`
`28. Tamura discloses that the “tilt angle sensor 24” has three axes: X, Y,
`
`and Z. (Id. at ¶[0021].) The “Z axis is placed in the direction of gravity.” (Id.)
`
`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 tilt 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.”).)
`
`29. 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.
`
`Therefore, processing unit 10 performs a dynamic selection of the axis of the tilt
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`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. (Id. 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 . . . .”).)
`
`B.
`Fabio
`30. Fabio is directed to “controlling a pedometer based on the use of
`
`inertial sensors.” (Ex. 1006 at 1:10-11.) An example of Fabio’s pedometer device
`
`1 as “integrated within a portable electronic device, such as a cell phone 2” (Id. at
`
`2:33-36) is reproduced below:
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1.)
`
`31. 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.)
`
`32. Fabio’s disclosed process for counting steps based on acceleration
`
`values includes several checks to ensure the accuracy of the step count. Fabio first
`
`checks in a “step-recognition” step whether a received acceleration measurement
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`corresponds to a step. 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. 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.)
`
`33. Once a step is recognized, it is counted if it falls within a validation
`
`interval. (Id. 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
`
`(reproduced below), Fabio shows a time-based representation of how its system
`
`validates whether a step occurred within a validation interval TV:
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 83
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaaration of DDr. Irfan EEssa
`U.
`
`
`S. Patent NNo. 8,712,7723
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at FFIG. 6 (annnotated).)
`
`
`
`
`
`34. The vvalidation interval TVV for each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`step is “deefined withh respect too the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`en by and is giveding step Ttely precede immediatinstant oof recognition of the TR(K-1)” a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the folloowing formmula:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 44:24-49.)
`
`
`
`hin a p falls withr each stepng whether identifyinThus, Fabbio teaches
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`windoww of time based on thee immediaately precedding step ((K-1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`Pasolini
`5. Pasol
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`lini is direected to “aa pedometter device
`
`and to a
`
`
`
`step detecction
`
`method
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`using aan algorithhm for sself-adaptiive compuutation off acceleraation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`threshollds.” (Ex.
`
`1008 at
`
`1:10-12.)
`
`
`
` In one eembodimeent, Pasolinni describbes a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`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.” (Id. at 3:13-19.) Specifically,
`
`Pasolini explains that
`
`The accelerometer 2 is advantageously an integrated sensor of
`semiconductor material, made using the MEMS technology, of
`a known type and thus not described in detail herein. 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.
`
`(Id.) 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. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES ALL OF THE LIMITATIONS
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’723 PATENT
`It is my opinion that one or more references discussed in this
`
`36.
`
`declaration disclose every limitation recited in the challenged claims. Below, I
`
`address each of the limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`A. Ground 1: Tamura and Fabio Disclose or Suggest the
`Limitations of Claims 1, 2, 10-12, and 14-17
`1.
`Claim 1
`a)
`“A method of monitoring human activity using
`an inertial sensor, comprising:”
`I understand that the claim language, “[a] method of monitoring
`
`37.
`
`human activity using an inertial sensor, comprising” is the preamble of claim 1 of
`
`the ’723 patent. I also understand that a preamble may not be a limitation. For
`
`purposes of this declaration, however, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`preamble of claim 1 is a limitation. Based on this assumption, in my opinion,
`
`Tamura discloses this limitation.
`
`38. For instance, Tamura discloses
`
`The mobile terminal apparatus 1
`is comprised of a
`processing unit 10, a detecting unit 20, an image-pickup unit
`30, a communication unit 32, a GPS information acquiring unit
`34 and a display unit 36. The detecting unit 20 has a magnetic
`sensor 22, a tilt angle sensor 24, a barometric sensor 26 and a
`temperature sensor 28, and has a function of detecting position,
`azimuth, bearing, altitude and so forth. The image-pickup unit
`30, which is equipped with a photoelectric conversion device,
`such as a CCD, acquires an image and sends it to the processing
`unit 10. The communication unit 32 has a function of
`communicating with an external server via a wireless circuit.
`This communication may also be carried out via a wire circuit.
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`The GPS information acquiring unit 34 receives positional
`information from GPS satellites. The processing unit 10
`calculates a present position, namely, the latitude and longitude,
`based on this positional information. It is to be noted that an
`accurate present position and azimuth can be determined by an
`arrangement that makes it possible to correct the positional
`information by azimuthal information from the magnetic sensor
`22. The processing unit 10 may be used in such a manner that
`the positional information and the azimuthal information
`complement each other. The processing unit 10 can also
`determine a present position and azimuth based on the detection
`results only from the detecting unit 20 without making use of
`the positional information from GPS satellites. The display unit
`36, which has a display, outputs information processed at the
`processing unit 10 according to an application. It is to be noted
`that a speaker, not shown, may be provided to produce audio
`outputs of various types of information for the user.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0019], FIG. 1.)
`
`39. With regard to the “tilt angle sensor 24,” Tamura discloses
`
`In Application 1, a mobile terminal apparatus 1 is provided with
`the function of a pedometer. A tilt angle sensor 24 detects
`acceleration components in the three-axis directions in
`accordance with the movement of the mobile terminal
`apparatus 1. Thus, while a user in possession of a mobile
`terminal apparatus 1 is walking, the tilt angle sensor 24 detects
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`not only the acceleration components corresponding to the tilt
`angle of the mobile terminal apparatus 1 but also low-frequency
`acceleration components in response to the movement of the
`user.
`
`(Id. at ¶[0024].) A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the “tilt
`
`angle sensor 24” in Tamura is an “inertial sensor” because, for example, it
`
`measures accelerations along multiple axes. (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;”
`In my opinion, Tamura discloses this limitation. Tamura discloses
`
`40.
`
`that the “tilt angle sensor 24” has three axes: X, Y, and Z, where the “Z axis is
`
`placed in the direction of gravity.” (Ex. 1005 at ¶[0021].) In particular, Tamura
`
`discloses
`
`The tilt angle sensor 24, which is an acceleration sensor for
`detecting acceleration components in three axis directions,
`comes in the resistance value change type, the capacity change
`type, the piezoelectric change type and so forth. For the tilt
`angle sensor 24, too, the X axis and the Y axis are placed
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`orthogonally to each other in a horizontal plane, and the Z
`axis is placed in the direction of gravity. As the posture of the
`mobile
`terminal apparatus 1
`inclines,
`the gravitational
`acceleration changes, and the pitch angle and the roll angle are
`detected by detecting this gravitational acceleration. When the
`mobile terminal apparatus 1 is in the state of being stationary,
`the posture of the mobile terminal apparatus 1 can be detected
`accurately using the two axes only. In a case when the user who
`possesses the mobile terminal apparatus 1 is walking or riding a
`vehicle such as a car or a bicycle, a kinetic acceleration
`component will be added to have effect on the tilt angle sensor
`24, so that the posture cannot be detected accurately. By the use
`of three axes, the gravitational acceleration and the kinetic
`acceleration can be separated from each other, thereby enabling
`an accurate detection of the posture. The pitch angle and roll
`angle can be calculated accurately by obtaining an assumed
`angle by integrating the output values of the respective axes and
`then performing a predetermined calculation by comparing the
`assumed angle with the acceleration component.
`
`(Id.)
`
`41. Tamura states that when counting steps, processing unit 10 uses
`
`“detection results along an axis with the tilt 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
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`of the tilt angle sensor 24 that most approximates the axis of gravity. (Id.)
`
`42. 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. 1005 at ¶[0025]; see above Section VII.A.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art 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.” (See above Section VII.A.) 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.” By selecting the “axis [that] most approximates the axis of
`
`gravity,” Tamura discloses “assigning a dominant axis with respect to gravity.”
`
`43. Tamura further discloses that the above assignment of the dominant
`
`axis is performed “based on an orientation of the inertial sensor.” 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 person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that detecting a change in the value of the pitch angle and the roll angle
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 83
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa
`U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723
`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. 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 . . . .”).) For
`
`instance, “[a]s the posture of the mobile terminal apparatus 1 inclines,” the tilt
`
`angle sensor 24 will also incline (i.e., its orientation will change) and the detected
`
`pitch angle and roll angle will indicate this change in orientation. (Id. at ¶[0021].)
`
`Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the pitch
`
`angle and the roll angle are parameters that define orientation. (Ex. 1010 at