`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INCSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,653,508
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Real Party in Interest ...................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ............................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back up Counsel and Service Information ..................................... 3
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 3
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ..................... 4
`V.
`THE ’508 PATENT ........................................................................................ 4
`A.
`Summary of the ’508 patent ........................................................................... 4
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’508 Patent ........................................................... 6
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 7
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 7
`A.
`“dominant axis” .............................................................................................. 8
`B.
`“cadence window” .......................................................................................... 9
`C.
`“a dominant axis logic to continuously determine an orientation of a
`device, to assign a dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis as
`the orientation of the device changes” ............................................................ 9
`“a counting logic to count periodic human motions by monitoring
`accelerations relative to the dominant axis” ................................................. 10
`“a counting logic to identify and count periodic human motions” .............. 11
`“a cadence logic to continuously update a dynamic cadence window” ....... 12
`“a mode logic, to switch the device from a non active mode to an
`active mode after a number of periodic human motions are detected
`within appropriate cadence windows by the counting logic”....................... 13
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`IX.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`1.
`2.
`D.
`
`H. Note Regarding the Claim Terms directed to “Logic” ................................. 14
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................ 15
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 16
`Challenged Claims ........................................................................................ 16
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................................ 16
`State of the art at the time of the ’508 Patent ............................................... 17
`Summary of Pasolini..................................................................................... 18
`Summary of Fabio ........................................................................................ 20
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 2 and 11 12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Pasolini ...................................................................................... 24
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................................... 24
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................................... 31
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................................ 32
`Claim 12 ........................................................................................................ 37
`Challenge #2: Claims 6 8, 15 16, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Fabio ....................................................................................... 37
`Claim 6 .......................................................................................................... 38
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................................... 49
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................................... 51
`Claim 15 ........................................................................................................ 52
`Claim 16 ........................................................................................................ 57
`Claim 19 ........................................................................................................ 59
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`E.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`F.
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 3 4, 13 14, and 20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Pasolini in view of Fabio ................................................ 60
`Reasons to Combine Pasolini and Fabio ...................................................... 60
`1.
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Claim 4 .......................................................................................................... 66
`3.
`Claim 13 ........................................................................................................ 68
`4.
`Claim 14 ........................................................................................................ 70
`5.
`Claim 20 ........................................................................................................ 72
`6.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73
`X.
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 74
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`7
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 3
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 4
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ..................... 5
`V.
`THE ’508 PATENT ........................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Summary of the ’508 patent ................................................................. 5
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’508 Patent ................................................ 7
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 8
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`“dominant axis” .................................................................................... 9
`“cadence window” .............................................................................. 10
`“a dominant axis logic to continuously determine an orientation
`of a device, to assign a dominant axis, and to update the
`dominant axis as the orientation of the device changes” ................... 11
`“a counting logic to count periodic human motions by
`monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis” .................... 12
`“a counting logic to identify and count periodic human
`motions” ............................................................................................. 13
`“a cadence logic to continuously update a dynamic cadence
`window” ............................................................................................. 14
`“a mode logic, to switch the device from a non-active mode to
`an active mode after a number of periodic human motions are
`detected within appropriate cadence windows by the counting
`logic” .................................................................................................. 15
`H. Note Regarding the Claim Terms directed to “Logic” ...................... 16
`VIII. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................................. 17
`IX.
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 18
`A.
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 18
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 18
`C.
`State of the art at the time of the ’508 Patent ..................................... 19
`1.
`Summary of Pasolini ................................................................ 20
`2.
`Summary of Fabio .................................................................... 22
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pasolini. ............................................................ 26
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 26
`
`G.
`
`D.
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`F.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 33
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 34
`3.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 39
`4.
`Challenge #2: Claims 6-8, 15-16, and 19 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fabio. ............................................................... 39
`1.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 40
`2.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54
`5.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 59
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 61
`Challenge #3: Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 20 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pasolini in view of Fabio. ................................ 62
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Pasolini and Fabio.................................. 62
`2.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 66
`3.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 68
`4.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 70
`5.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 72
`6.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 74
`X. ANY ARGUMENT FOR A DISCRETIONARY DENIAL SHOULD
`BE REJECTED ............................................................................................. 75
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 75
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 77
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 78
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 7 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`August 23, 2018
`U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`Declaration of Joe Paradiso, Ph.D, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joe Paradiso.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”).
`
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in
`IPR2018-01589
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Page 8 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`(“the ’508 patent”). This petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion
`
`for joinder. Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with HTC
`
`Corp. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-01589 (“the HTC IPR” or “the HTC
`
`proceeding”), which the Board instituted on February 27, 2019. This petition is
`
`substantially identical to the petition in the HTC IPR; it contains the same grounds
`
`(based on the same prior art combinations and supporting evidence) against the
`
`same claims. (See Ex. 1007, illustrating changes between the instant petition and
`
`the petition in IPR2018-01589.) U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508 (“the ’508 patent,” Ex.
`
`1001) is generally directed to “monitoring human activity, and more particularly to
`
`counting periodic human motions.” Ex. 1001, 1:5 6. The claims of the ’508 patent
`
`are directed to two separate concepts. The first concept is a well known technique
`
`for determining which of three axes in a tri axial accelerometer is directed to a
`
`“dominant axis” and counting a user’s steps along that axis. The second concept is
`
`a well known technique for counting periodic human motions using two different
`
`operating modes. In the first mode, periodic human motions are detected but not
`
`added to the total count until validated. In the second mode, detected periodic
`
`human motions are counted and added to the total count. As shown below, these
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`concepts were already taught in the prior art before the priority date of the ’508
`
`patent.
`
`Accordingly, this petition and the cited evidence demonstrate that claims 1
`
`4, 6 8, 11 16, 19, and 20 of the ’508 patent are unpatentable under (pre AIA) 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a). HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (together “Petitioner”)
`
`therefore respectfully request that these claims be held unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`This Petition is substantively the same as IPR2018 00387, which was
`
`instituted on July 23, 2018, but includes an additional challenge to claim 20.
`
`Because claim 20 is substantially similar to claims 3 and 13, which have been
`
`instituted, no new grounds or arguments are being presented. This Petition is being
`
`filed concurrently with a motion for joinder with respect to IPR2018 00387.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are HTC Corporation and HTC America,
`
`IncSamsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters
`As of the filing date of this petition, the ’508 patent has been asserted in the
`
`following cases:
`
`Heading
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei
`Devices USA, Inc.
`
`Court
`Number
`2:17-cv-00737 E.D. Tex.
`
`Filed
`Nov. 9, 2017
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am.,
`Inc.
`
`2:17-cv-01629 W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2017
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs.
`USA, Inc.
`
`4:172-cv-
`00832
`
`N.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 13, 2017
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs.
`USA, Inc.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung
`Elecs. Am., Inc.
`
`4:18-cv-02918 N.D. Cal.
`
`May 17, 2018
`
`2:17-cv-00650 E.D. Tex.
`
`Sep. 15, 2017
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`
`2:17-cv-00522 E.D. Tex.
`
`Jun. 30, 2017
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`
`
`4:18-cv-00364 N.D. Cal.
`
`Jan. 17, 2018
`
`Additionally, the ’508 patent is the subject of two four other pending
`
`requests for inter partes review: IPR2018-00387 filed by Apple Inc. on December
`
`22, 2017 (instituted on July 23, 2018),; and IPR2018-01026 filed by Apple Inc. on
`
`May 4, 2018 (institution denied on October 18, 2018 and rehearing request denied
`
`on February 1, 2019); IPR2018-01577 filed by LG Electronics, Inc. on August 23,
`
`2018 (instituted and joined with IPR2018-00387 on January 15, 2019); IPR2018-
`
`01756 filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on September 18, 2018
`
`(institution denied on March 11, 2019). Except in IPR2018-01756, Ththe real
`
`parties-in-interest herein are not parties to the above listed petitions and were not
`
`involved in the preparation of those petitions.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`Todd E. Landis
`Phone: (214) 220 7700
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`
`Fax: (214) 220 7716
`tlandis@velaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,200
`
`
`Phone: (512) 542 8433
`Fax: (512) 542 8612
`mapreotesi@velaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 65,293
`
`Vinson & Elkins LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Back up Counsel
`Mario A. Apreotesi
`Vinson & Elkins LLP
`2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
`Austin, TX 78746
`
`Jeffrey R. Swigart
`Vinson & Elkins LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back up counsel. Petitioner
`
`Phone: (214) 220 7700
`Fax: (214) 220 7716
`jswigart@velaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 77,008
`
`consents to electronic service via email at HTCCounselUniloc@velaw.comLead
`
`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. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that theThe ’508 patent is eligible for inter partes
`
`reviewIPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes reviewIPR challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this
`
`petition. Petitioner was served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’508
`
`patent on November 1, 2017, which is not more than one year before the filing of
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`this Petition. Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claim of the ’508 patent.Petitioner is not estopped because this petition is
`
`accompanied by a motion for joinder, and is being submitted no later than one
`
`month after the institution date of the HTC IPR. Under the Board’s current
`
`interpretation of the statute and rules, including 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), the time
`
`period set forth in § 42.101(b) does not apply to a Petition accompanied by a
`
`request for joinder.
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`Petitioner’s citation to Ex. 1002 uses the page numbers added for
`
`compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Petitioner’s citations to the remaining
`
`exhibits use the page numbers in their original publication. Unless otherwise
`
`noted, all bold underline emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`V. THE ’508 PATENT
`Summary of the ’508 patent
`A.
`The ’508 patent is directed to “a method of monitoring human activity, and
`
`more particularly, to counting periodic human motions such as steps.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:5-7. As admitted by the Applicant, “inertial sensors (e.g., accelerometers)” are
`
`commonly used in commercial electronic devices. Id., 1:13-18. “Step counting
`
`devices are used to monitor an individual’s daily activity by keeping track of the
`
`number of steps that he or she takes.” Id., 1:19-21. These devices, however, “are
`
`often confused by motion noise experienced by the device throughout a user’s
`
`5
`
`Page 13 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`daily routine. This noise causes false steps to be measured and actual steps to be
`
`missed in conventional step counting devices.” Id., 1:27-31.
`
`The claims are directed to two separate concepts. The first concept
`
`(associated with independent claims 1 and 11) relates to determining and assigning
`
`a “dominant axis,” and counting steps along that axis. See id., claim 1. In the ’508
`
`patent, the dominant axis is the axis “with the largest absolute rolling average . . .
`
`most influenced by gravity, which may change over time (e.g. as the electronic
`
`device is rotated). Therefore, a new dominant axis may be assigned when the
`
`orientation of the electronic device . . . changes.” Id., 6:16-21.
`
`The second concept (associated with independent claims 6 and 15) relates to
`
`counting steps in two different modes—a non-active mode and an active mode. In
`
`the non-active mode, steps are detected but not yet added to the total step count.
`
`Instead, steps are buffered until the device switches to the active mode, which
`
`occurs when a certain number of steps have been detected and validated. Steps are
`
`determined to be valid if they fall within a cadence window. The cadence window
`
`is based on a user’s motion cycle or stepping period. Once in the active mode, the
`
`detected steps are added to the total step count as they are detected.
`
`The concepts described and claimed in the ’508 patent were not new at the
`
`time the ’508 patent was filed. Before the ’508 Patent was filed, Fabio Pasolini
`
`was actively working on pedometer devices that included the concepts described
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`and claimed in the ’508 patent. Mr. Pasolini filed two patent applications (issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 (“Fabio”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997
`
`(“Pasolini”)) before the ’508 patent was filed. The Pasolini reference describes a
`
`pedometer updating the vertical axis with each acquisition of an acceleration
`
`sample to take into account variations of the orientation of the pedometer device
`
`during use. Ex. 1005, 8:20-24. The Fabio reference, on the other hand, describes
`
`applying a regularity condition to the detected step data so that a step is counted
`
`when it occurs within a “validation interval.” The disclosures provided in the
`
`Fabio and Pasolini references render obvious each and every element of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’508 Patent
`B.
`The ’508 patent issued on January 26, 2010 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 11/644,455 filed on December 22, 2006.
`
`The first Office Action issued on August 31, 2009, and included no prior art
`
`rejections. See Ex. 1002, p. 70. The Action did, however, include multiple
`
`objections to the drawings and other informalities. On October 9, 2009, the
`
`Applicant filed a response to replace drawings and amended the specification to
`
`address the other objections. See id., p. 54. A Notice of Allowance then issued on
`
`November 30, 2009. See id., p. 16. In the Allowance, the Examiner did not
`
`provide any specific reason but instead quoted the independent claims and merely
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`stated that a few cited references did not teach the limitations of the claims. See
`
`id., p. 22.
`
`The prior art presented in this petition was not cited or applied by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who had, at
`
`the priority date of the ’508 Patent (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, and/or Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience working in hardware
`
`and/or software design and development related to MEMS (micro-electro-
`
`mechanical) devices and body motion sensing systems. Ex. 1003, p. 10. Lack of
`
`work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Id.
`
`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).1 Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given
`
`1 While the claim construction standard has changed from BRI to Phillips for
`
`petitions filed after November 13, 2018, the Board should apply the BRI standard
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`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). Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S.
`
`___, slip op. at 17 (2016). Also, because the claim constructions proposed herein
`
`are based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not necessarily apply to
`
`other proceedings that use different claim construction standards. See Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc., IPR2013 00569, Paper 9 at 2 (PTAB
`
`2013). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different claim constructions in other
`
`proceedings, including in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00650 (E.D. Tex.). For terms not addressed below, Petitioner
`
`submits that no specific construction is necessary for this proceeding.2
`
`“dominant axis”
`A.
`This term appears in at least claims 1 and 11. In the specification of the ’508
`
`patent, the dominant axis is determined based on the accelerometer’s alignment
`
`to the instant petition because Samsung is simply seeking joinder as a co-petitioner
`
`to the HTC proceeding. If the Board deems that its rule(s) require application of
`
`the Phillips standard to this petition, Samsung seeks waiver of such rule(s)
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`2 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`9
`
`Page 17 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`with gravity. Ex. 1003, p. 17. For example, the specification states that “[i]n one
`
`embodiment, the dominant axis is assigned after identifying a gravitational
`
`influence. The gravitational influence may be identified by calculating total
`
`acceleration based upon the acceleration on each axis.” Ex. 1001, 14:34-38. The
`
`specification also states that “[i]n one embodiment, once the orientation is
`
`determined, a dominant axis is assigned based upon the orientation. Determining
`
`an orientation of the electronic device 100 may include identifying a gravitational
`
`influence.” Id., 6:12-15. In other words, the dominant axis is “the axis most
`
`influenced by gravity, which may change over time (e.g., as the electronic device is
`
`rotated).” Id., 6:16-18.
`
`Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “dominant axis” as used
`
`in the claims includes “the axis most influenced by gravity.” Ex. 1003, p. 18.
`
`“cadence window”
`B.
`This term appears in at least claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20. The
`
`specification specifically 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, 3:64-65.
`
`Thus, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “cadence window” as
`
`used in the claims includes “a window of time since a last step was counted that is
`
`looked at to detect a new step.” Ex. 1003, p. 18.
`
`10
`
`Page 18 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`“a dominant axis logic to continuously determine an orientation of
`a device, to assign a dominant axis, and to update the dominant
`axis as the orientation of the device changes”
`This term appears in at least claim 11. The specification describes that
`
`“dominant axis logic 127 is used to determine an orientation of the electronic
`
`device 100 and/or an inertial sensor within the electronics device 100.” See Ex.
`
`1001, 3:4-8. “At processing block 812, in one embodiment the inertial sensor is
`
`oriented by assigning a dominant axis. Assigning a dominant axis may include
`
`calculating rolling averages of acceleration and assigning the dominant axis based
`
`on the rolling averages of acceleration.” Id., 12:42-43. The specification further
`
`describes that the present invention may be performed by hardware, software, or a
`
`combination of both. See id., 14:50-56.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of this claim term to include “hardware, software, or both to
`
`continuously determine an orientation of a device, to assign a dominant axis, and to
`
`update the dominant axis as the orientation of the device changes.”
`
`However, to the extent that Patent Owner overcomes the presumption
`
`against construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, a POSITA would
`
`have understood the claim itself and the specification to provide:
`
`11
`
`Page 19 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`Function: continuously determine an orientation of a device, to assign a
`
`dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis as the orientation of the
`
`device changes;
`
`Structure: software, hardware, or combination thereof to perform actions in
`
`block 812. See Ex. 1001, 12:42-43, 14:50-56; Ex. 1003, pp. 18-19.
`
`D.
`
`“a counting logic to count periodic human motions by monitoring
`accelerations relative to the dominant axis”
`This term appears in at least claim 11. The specification describes “step
`
`counting logic 130” that is used “to determine if a step has occurred” and indicate
`
`if “a step may be counted . . . .” Ex. 1001, 6:40-45, 7:2. In one example, at block
`
`615, “measurement data is checked to determine whether an additional step is
`
`recognized.” Id., 11:19-21. At block 620, “[i]f an additional step is recognized,
`
`then it is added to the final or actual step count.” Id., 11:21-22. The specification
`
`further describes that the present invention may be performed by hardware,
`
`software, or a combination of both. See id., 14:50-56.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of this claim term to include “hardware, software, or both to count
`
`periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis,
`
`or identify and count periodic human motions.”
`
`12
`
`Page 20 of 88
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`However, to the extent that Patent Owner overcomes the presumption
`
`against construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, a POSITA would
`
`have understood the claim itself and the specification to provide:
`
`Function: count periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations
`
`relative to the dominant axis;
`
`Structure: software, hardware, or combination thereof to perform