`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00037
`Patent 6,059,576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`APPLE’S PETITION COMPLIES WITH THE “PARTICULARITY AND
`SPECIFICITY” REQUIREMENT .................................................................. 2 
`ONO-HUTCHINGS COMBINATION (GROUND 1) ................................... 3 
`A.  Ono-Hutchings renders obvious “a movement sensor” as recited in
`elements [1a] and [1k] and a “movement measuring device” as recited in
`element [20a] .............................................................................................. 3 
`  A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Ono’s device
`with multidimensional accelerometers/velocity sensors and rotational
`sensors as suggested by Hutchings ....................................................... 3 
`  Apple has shown by the preponderance of the evidence that Ono-
`Hutchings teaches the claimed “movement sensor” and “movement
`measuring device” ................................................................................. 6 
`B.  Ono renders elements [1f], [20f], [30], [41], and [42] obvious ................. 8 
`  Ono teaches “storing first event information related to the detected
`first user-defined event” (elements [1f], [20f]) and “first event
`information indicating that the predetermined threshold is met” (claim
`41) .......................................................................................................... 8 
`  Ono teaches storing first event information “along with first time
`stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data
`causing the first user-defined event occurred” (elements [1f], [20f]),
`storing “date information associated with the first time stamp
`information” (claim 30), and storing “the first time stamp information
`in association with said first event information” (claim 42) ............... 16 
`C.  Ono-Hutchings renders obvious “interpreting... based on... a real-time
`clock” (element [20c]) .............................................................................. 22 
`III.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-AMANO COMBINATION (GROUND 2) ................ 23 
`A.  Ono-Hutchings-Amano renders obvious “a real-time clock” (element
`[1h]) and “interpreting... based on... a real-time clock” (element [20c]) . 23 
`IV.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-CONLAN COMBINATION (GROUND 3A) ............ 24 
`A.  A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ono-Hutchings and
`Conlan ....................................................................................................... 24 
`B.  LoganTree’s arguments regarding Conlan’s disclosure of certain claim
`elements fail .............................................................................................. 25 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`V.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-CONLAN-HICKMAN COMBINATION (GROUND
`3B) ................................................................................................................. 26 
`A.  A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ono-Hutchings-
`Conlan and Hickman ................................................................................ 26 
`B.  LoganTree’s arguments regarding Hickman’s disclosure of claim 51 fail
` .................................................................................................................. 26 
`VI.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-KAUFMAN COMBINATION (GROUND 4) ........... 27 
`A.  A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ono-Hutchings and
`Kaufman ................................................................................................... 27 
`B.  LoganTree’s arguments regarding Kaufman’s disclosure of various claim
`elements fail .............................................................................................. 27 
`VII.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-AMANO-CONLAN-KAUFMAN COMBINATION
`(GROUND 5A) .............................................................................................. 28 
`A.  A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ono-Hutchings with
`Amano, Conlan, and Kaufman ................................................................. 28 
`B.  LoganTree’s arguments regarding various claim elements fail ............... 28 
`VIII.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-AMANO-CONLAN-KAUFMAN-HICKMAN
`COMBINATION (GROUND 5B) ................................................................ 29 
`IX.  ONO-HUTCHINGS-CONLAN-KAUFMAN-HICKMAN COMBINATION
`(GROUND 8B) .............................................................................................. 29 
`X.  GROUNDS 6A, 6B, 7, AND 8A ................................................................... 30 
`XI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 to Brann. (“the ’576 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’576 Patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00397, W.D.
`Tex., Apr. 23, 2021
`
`Stipulation by Petitioner
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No.
`6,059,576
`
`Excerpts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,201
`Prosecution History
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,778,882 (“Raymond”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 (“Conlan”)
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 (“Gesink”)
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Scheduling Order, Logantree LP, v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00397,
`W.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2021
`
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`APPLE-1015-1023
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`APPLE-1026-1028
`
`APPLE-1029
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`“2021 Discretionary Denials Have Passed 100, But Are
`Slowing,” Dani Krass, Law360, July 21, 2021
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`“Leahy And Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Support
`American Innovation And Reduce Litigation”, Sep. 29, 2021,
`available at: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-and-
`cornyn-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-support-american-
`innovation-and-reduce-litigation
`
`Restoring the America Invents Act, S. 2891, 117th
`Cong. (2021).
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Fitbit Inc., 2:15-cv-01575, E.D.
`Tex., Oct. 2, 2015
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Garmin International, Inc., 5:17-
`cv-00098, W.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2017
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Garmin International, Inc., 6:17-
`cv-01217, D. Kan., Aug. 23, 2017
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Omron Healthcare, Inc., 1:18-cv-
`01617, D. Del., Oct. 18, 2018
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Misfit, Inc., 1:21-cv-00385, D.
`Del., Mar. 16, 2021
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd,
`6:21-cv-00119, E.D. Tex., Mar. 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`
`
`APPLE-1030
`
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`
`APPLE-1032
`
`
`APPLE-1033
`
`
`APPLE-1034
`
`
`APPLE-1035
`
`
`APPLE-1036
`
`
`APPLE-1037
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. LG Electronics, Inc., 4:21-cv-
`00332, E.D. Tex., Apr. 27, 2021
`
`
`APPLE-1038-1099
`
`APPLE-1100
`
`APPLE-1101
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Thomas Kenny
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,962,469 (“Ono”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1102
`
`APPLE-1103
`
`APPLE-1104
`
`APPLE-1105
`
`APPLE-1106
`
`APPLE-1107
`
`APPLE-1108
`
`APPLE-1109
`
`APPLE-1110
`
`APPLE-1111
`
`APPLE-1112
`
`APPLE-1113
`
`
`APPLE-1114
`
`
`APPLE-1115
`
`
`APPLE-1116
`
`APPLE-1117
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,899,963 (“Hutchings”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,837 (“Amano”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,692 (“Hickman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,857,939 (“Kaufman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,903 (“Schiltz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 (“Richardson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,553,007 (“Brisson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,916,181 (“Socci”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,593,431 (“Sheldon”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,511,045 (“Sasaki”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,387,437 (“Lowrey”)
`
`Warwick, “Trends and Limits in the ‘Talk Time’ of Personal
`Communicators,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 83, No. 4
`(April 1995)
`
`Docket Entry, Logantree LP, v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-00397-
`ADA, W.D. Tex., May 12, 2022
`
`Docket Entry, Logantree LP, v. Apple Inc., 5:22-cv-02892-NC,
`N.D. Cal., May 16, 2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,961 to Geen et al.
`
`Howe et al., Polysilicon integrated microsystems: technologies
`and applications, Sensors and Actuators A 56, Elsevier
`Sciences S.A. (1996), 167-177
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`APPLE-1118
`
`
`APPLE-1119
`
`
`APPLE-1120
`
`APPLE-1121
`
`APPLE-1122
`
`
`APPLE-1123
`
`APPLE-1124
`
`APPLE-1125
`
`APPLE-1126
`
`
`APPLE-1127
`
`
`APPLE-1128
`
`
`APPLE-1129
`
`
`APPLE-1130
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`ADXL50 data sheet, Monolithic Accelerometer with Signal
`Conditioning, Analog Devices, Inc., 1996
`
`ADXL05 data sheet, Single Chip Accelerometer with Signal
`Conditioning, Analog Devices, Inc., 1996
`
`U.S. Patent No. 643,592 to Chapeaurouge
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,010,560 to Janney et al.
`
`Patterson, Design and Development of a Breath-by-breath
`Analysis System for Use at Low Altitudes, 1993, available at
`https://shareok.org/handle/11244/12592
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0246908
`
`International Application Publication No. WO1999048296
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120071238
`
`“along with,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/along%20with,
`Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“along with someone/something,” Cambridge Dictionary,
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/along-
`with, Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“along with,” Collins Dictionary,
`https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/along-
`with, Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“in association with,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
`https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/in%20association%20with, Accessed
`Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“in association with,” MacMillan Dictionary,
`https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/i
`n-association-with, Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1131
`
`
`APPLE-1132
`
`
`APPLE-1133
`
`
`APPLE-1134
`
`
`APPLE-1135
`
`
`APPLE-1136
`
`APPLE-1137
`
`APPLE-1138
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`“elapsed time,” MacMillan Dictionary,
`https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/e
`lapsed-time, Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“elapse,” Collins Dictionary,
`https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/elapse,
`Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“duration,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duration,
`Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`“duration,” Cambridge Dictionary,
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/duration,
`Accessed Feb. 27, 2023
`
`Samuels, Single- and Dual-Axis Micromachined
`Accelerometers, Analog Dialog, Volume 30, Number 4, 1996
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,939,633 to Judy
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Transcript of Dr. Madisetti Deposition taken on Feb. 17, 2023
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`LoganTree’s Response (POR) is premised on the wrong standard of proof—
`
`alleging that Apple has not provided “clear-and-convincing evidence” to show
`
`unpatentability of the Challenged Claims. See POR, 18, 19, 39. However, the
`
`standard for proving unpatentability of a patent claim in an IPR is a
`
`“preponderance of the evidence” rather than “clear and convincing evidence.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`Regardless, and as demonstrated in the Petition, Apple has proven by at least
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. And
`
`as demonstrated below with reference to evidence including Dr. Kenny’s
`
`corroborated testimony, LoganTree’s Response fails to rebut positions advanced in
`
`Apple’s Petition.
`
`Indeed, rather than squarely confronting the Petition’s substantial evidence
`
`of unpatentability, the POR mischaracterizes Apple’s positions, the prior art, and
`
`the prosecution history. Further, the POR does so on the basis of testimony from a
`
`witness who, unlike Dr. Kenny, provides no corroborating evidence or factual
`
`analysis in support of his conclusions. Cf. TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc.,
`
`942 F.3d 1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (reversing a PTAB finding of
`
`obviousness that was based on an “ipse dixit declaration”); EX2001; APPLE-1038.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`APPLE’S PETITION COMPLIES WITH THE “PARTICULARITY
`AND SPECIFICITY” REQUIREMENT
`LoganTree accuses Apple of failing to comply with the “particularity and
`
`specificity” requirement because “Petitioner provides no supporting argument” and
`
`instead “only provides a long, unexplained string cite, which is inadequate.” POR,
`
`22-23, 31, 42-43, 49. In doing so, LoganTree has ignored the Petition’s and Dr.
`
`Kenny’s detailed explanations as to teachings of the references individually and in
`
`combination.
`
`Apple’s Petition here is distinguishable from the petition in Apple, Inc. v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., which LoganTree relies on for its arguments.
`
`IPR2015-00454, Paper 1 (Dec. 2014). In ContentGuard, the Board described
`
`several examples of why the petition was defective. IPR2015-00454, Paper 9, 5-6
`
`(July 2015). Here, Apple’s Petition is far from being “clearly deficient,” as the
`
`string cites LoganTree takes issue with cites and cross-references far less than that
`
`described for the ContentGuard petition. POR, 22-23, 31, 42-43.
`
`Further, the Board has determined that “long string cites of paragraphs,
`
`figures, and other citations without any quotations, parentheticals or explanations
`
`of how those various citations support its arguments” is not a basis for finding a
`
`petition deficient when the “Petition as a whole provides clear and detailed
`
`explanations as to how the prior art references teach or suggest each claim
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`limitation.” Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2018-
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`01106, Paper 30, 19-20 (Nov. 28, 2018). Here, as in Samsung, LoganTree
`
`narrowly focuses on one sentence and ignores the detailed explanations provided in
`
`the Petition and in Dr. Kenny’s declaration.
`
`II. ONO-HUTCHINGS COMBINATION (GROUND 1)
`A. Ono-Hutchings renders obvious “a movement sensor” as recited
`in elements [1a] and [1k] and a “movement measuring device” as
`recited in element [20a]
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Ono’s
`device with multidimensional accelerometers/velocity
`sensors and rotational sensors as suggested by Hutchings
`LoganTree argues that modifying Ono to include Hutchings’s
`
`multidimensional sensors “would significantly increase the complexity and cost...
`
`while also having a dramatic negative impact on battery life” and “would require
`
`more processing power and memory while draining batteries much faster,” which
`
`according to LoganTree, are “unacceptable trade-offs for a simple pedometer
`
`device that is intended to be used over the course of days or even months.” POR,
`
`19. Neither LoganTree nor its witness provides any support for these assertions.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts
`
`or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).
`
`And, contrary to those assertions, Ono nowhere describes or suggests that its
`
`pedometer is “a simple pedometer device that is intended to be used over the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`course of days or even months.” Further, Hutchings nowhere describes or suggests
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`that its multidimensional sensors “significantly increase the complexity and cost”
`
`and have “a dramatic negative impact on battery life” of a pedometer.
`
`Ono (filed April 1989) recognized that, at the time of its filing, pedometers
`
`using a magnetic or mechanical sensor had “a relative complexity in the sensor-
`
`construction” and were consequently “large in size.” APPLE-1101, [22], 1:11-23.
`
`In the context of that earlier state of the art, Ono describes a piezoelectric
`
`acceleration sensor with an “extremely simple construction” that allows a
`
`pedometer to “be made compact in size” for incorporation into “an electronic wrist
`
`watch.” APPLE-1101, 2:22-36, 3:10-4:9, FIGS. 1, 2.
`
`During the 8 years between Ono and the ’576 patent (filed November 1997;
`
`APPLE-1001, [22]) and Hutchings (filed June 1997; APPLE-1102, [22]),
`
`movement sensor technology advanced such that more complex movement sensor
`
`architectures offering significant advantages over a simple piezoelectric
`
`acceleration sensor were themselves sufficiently compact, light-weight, and
`
`inexpensive for incorporation into small wrist worn devices for measuring
`
`movement during walking and running, including devices with Ono’s wrist watch
`
`form factor. APPLE-1102, 3:5-8, 3:32-34, 4:21-32, 4:55-5:12, 10:43-51, FIGS. 7-
`
`9; APPLE-1100, ¶¶4-5, 12, p. 156; APPLE-1135, 3-5; APPLE-1116—APPLE-
`
`1119, APPLE-1136. Indeed, it is through the use of these advantageously complex
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`sensors that Hutchings provides “a new and improved running and walking
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`measuring system... which is light in weight, relatively inexpensive and convenient
`
`to use” (APPLE-1102, 2:66-3:2, 2:40-46), and a POSITA readily understood that
`
`the same sensors advantageously complement Ono’s stated goals of “firmly
`
`measur[ing] exercise in walking, jogging and the like” with a “compact” device by
`
`enabling additional functionality without significantly increasing cost or battery
`
`drain (APPLE-1101, 2:22-26). APPLE-1100, ¶¶63-64.
`
`Even if the battery would drain much faster in the Ono-Hutchings’s device
`
`as LoganTree alleged, a POSITA would have deemed this tradeoff acceptable in
`
`applications where accurate distance/speed/velocity measurements are desired.
`
`Petition, 25-26; APPLE-1100, ¶¶63-64. LoganTree not only ignores the
`
`motivations discussed in the Petition and by Dr. Kenny, but also ignores the
`
`Federal Circuit’s instruction that “obviousness ‘does not require that the
`
`motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior
`
`art did not teach away.’” Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc., 874 F.3d 1316,
`
`1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d
`
`1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`Here, Hutchings provides a suitable option for obtaining speed and distance
`
`measurements without rendering Ono’s device inoperable, and Ono does not teach
`
`away from the use of compact multidimensional sensors for such measurements.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`See Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). A POSITA would have been motivated to look to Hutchings for
`
`its stated benefits. APPLE-1100, ¶¶62-65. LoganTree’s alleged “unacceptable
`
`trade-offs” do not undermine a motivation to combine. Allied Erecting &
`
`Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`LoganTree further argues that Apple has not “provided clear-and-convincing
`
`evidence” of “a reasonable expectation of success” because “Ono and Hutchings
`
`have fundamentally different (and incompatible) architectures.” POR, 19-20. This
`
`argument relies on not only the wrong standard of proof but also the wrong test for
`
`obviousness, and appears to focus on whether components of Ono and Hutchings
`
`can be physically combined together, which is not a requirement for finding
`
`obviousness. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed,
`
`710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`
`
`Apple has shown by the preponderance of the evidence that
`Ono-Hutchings teaches the claimed “movement sensor” and
`“movement measuring device”
`LoganTree further attacks Apple’s showing that Ono-Hutchings teaches “a
`
`movement sensor” that is “capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction” (elements [1a], [20a]) and “measures the angle and
`
`velocity of said movement” (element [1k]). POR, 20-23, 31. In doing so,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`LoganTree does not dispute that Hutchings discloses accelerometers that measure
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`accelerations in three dimensions (APPLE-8:49-61; Petition, 29; APPLE-1100,
`
`¶¶68-70), rotational sensors that provide the angle of rotation along each axis (id.),
`
`and velocity sensors that measure velocity of the user (APPLE-1102, 12:58-63;
`
`Petition, 64; APPLE-1100, ¶107). POR, 20-23, 31. Rather, LoganTree accuses
`
`Apple of failing to comply with the “particularity and specificity” requirement for
`
`IPR Petitions, which as explained in Section I, is a baseless accusation. Id.
`
`Without disputing that elements [1a] and [20a] are disclosed by Hutchings,
`
`LoganTree asserts that Apple has not shown that Hutchings discloses the
`
`“unrestrained movement” aspect. POR, 22. In doing so, LoganTree ignores the
`
`Petition’s and Dr. Kenny’s clear and detailed explanations of Hutchings’s
`
`disclosure of multidimensional accelerometers and rotational sensors, and in
`
`particular, to the Petition’s and Dr. Kenny’s citation to Hutchings at 3:22-26,
`
`which states that “[o]ne set of three component linear accelerometers and one set
`
`of three-component rotational sensors may be employed to resolve the absolute
`
`motion of a person...” Petition, 28; APPLE-1100, ¶68; cf. APPLE-1001, 4:37-48.
`
`There is no dispute that Hutchings discloses a movement sensor “capable of
`
`measuring data associated with unrestrained movement,” i.e., “absolute motion of
`
`a person,” and thus Ono-Hutchings renders [1a] and [20a] obvious. Id.; APPLE-
`
`1102, 3:22-26.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`LoganTree also does not dispute that Hutchings discloses element [1k], but
`
`rather LoganTree’s only complaint is that Apple “makes no argument and cites no
`
`disclosure that either Ono or Hutchings discloses that ‘the movement sensor
`
`measures the angle’ in its argument section for Element 1k.” POR, 31. While the
`
`Petition’s argument section for element [1k] includes a detailed discussion of
`
`velocity, as that was not previously discussed in the Petition, it does so with
`
`reference to the Ono-Hutchings’s movement sensor as discussed in the Petition’s
`
`analysis of element [1a]. Petition, 64; APPLE-1100, ¶106. As the Petition had
`
`established in the analysis of element [1a] prior to its analysis of element [1k],
`
`Hutchings discloses rotational sensors that measure the angle of movement.
`
`Petition, 28-29 (citing APPLE-1102, 4:60-65, 5:9-12, 8:49-61), 22-23; APPLE-
`
`1100, ¶¶68-70, 106. LoganTree does not dispute that Hutchings provides such
`
`disclosure. POR, 31.
`
`B. Ono renders elements [1f], [20f], [30], [41], and [42] obvious
` Ono teaches “storing first event information related to the
`detected first user-defined event” (elements [1f], [20f]) and
`“first event information indicating that the predetermined
`threshold is met” (claim 41)
`The Board correctly determined that “the Petition makes a sufficient
`
`showing... that Ono discloses” limitation [1f] based on the Petition’s detailed
`
`discussion of Ono’s disclosure of storing “the user-defined operational parameters
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`and the movement data used to detect the user-defined event, both of which are
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`event information related to the detected user-defined event.” Decision, 19-20
`
`(citing Petition, 50). The Board’s reasoning is sound.
`
`LoganTree acknowledges that “Ono stores the user-defined operational
`
`parameters and movement data that may be used to detect the user-defined event”
`
`but asserts that “Ono doesn’t ‘stor[e]’ information relating to any ‘detected’ event”
`
`and “does not disclose this limitation because no new or separate ‘first event
`
`information’ is stored upon the detection of that user-defined event.” POR, 25, 9-
`
`10, 35.
`
`LoganTree’s arguments imply a claim construction unsupported by the plain
`
`claim language. The claim does not require first event information be stored “upon
`
`the detection” of the first user-defined event. Other claims in the ’576 patent
`
`confirm that the applicant knew precisely how to craft claims reciting functionality
`
`that is performed “upon the detection” of the first user-defined event (claims 32,
`
`36, 38, 66, 69, 73, 75, 103, 106, 110, 112, 139 all reciting “based on the detection
`
`of the [first] user-defined event”). In contrast, elements [1f] and [20f] recite no
`
`requirement that storing first event information is “based on the detection” of the
`
`first user-defined event. Elements [1f] and [20f] merely require that the stored first
`
`event information is “related to” the detected first user-defined event, and claim 41
`
`merely requires that the first event information indicates “that the predetermined
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`threshold is met.” As the Petition and Dr. Kenny explained, user-defined
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`operational parameters and movement data used to detect the user-defined event,
`
`e.g., “the distance-walked has reached the target distance OH” and/or
`
`“accumulative number of steps has reached the target number of steps OG,” are
`
`event information “related to” the detected user-defined event and indicates that
`
`the target distance and/or the target number of steps, respectively, is met. Petition,
`
`50, 76-77; APPLE-1100, ¶¶93, 122. The fact that Ono stores the event information
`
`used to detect the user-defined event prior to detecting the user-defined event does
`
`not make it any less “related to” the detected user-defined event or any less of an
`
`indication that the predetermined threshold is met.
`
`Ono also teaches storing new or separate1 event information after detection
`
`of that user-defined event, as explained in the Petition (pp. 53-57), which is a
`
`second way that Ono satisfies elements [1f] and [20f] and claim 41. The red
`
`processing path highlighted in Ono’s FIGS. 18 and 20 below explicitly shows
`
`detecting a user-defined event (at FIG. 18, steps a17 and a20) using movement data
`
`and user-defined operational parameters stored (at FIG. 18, steps a11, a12, a16, a19) in
`
`RAM (at registers inside purple box of FIG. 15 below) and thereafter storing
`
`separate event and time information (at FIG. 20, step C15) related to that detected
`
`
`1 Apple notes that the plain claim language has no “new or separate” requirement.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`user-defined event in different registers D of RAM (at registers D inside red box of
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 15). Petition, 53-57; APPLE-1101, 13:65-14:29, 16:24-25, 17:10-50, 18:20-
`
`24, 20:37-53, FIGS. 15, 18, 20, 23; APPLE-1100, ¶¶96-98.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`APPLE-1101, FIGS. 15, 18, 20 (partial) collated
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`The red processing path illustrated above does not include any further
`
`receiving, interpreting, storing, and responding to new movement data before
`
`storing the event and date/time information in registers D, and thus the separate
`
`event and date/time information stored in registers D are related to the detected
`
`user-defined event. Id. While the red processing path includes generating an
`
`alarm sound (at FIG. 18, steps a18 and a21) and switch processing (at FIG. 18, steps
`
`a1 and a23; APPLE-1101, 16:28-31) after detecting the event and before storing the
`
`separate event and date/time information, nothing in the claim requires event and
`
`date/time information be stored “upon the detection” of the user-defined event, as
`
`discussed above, and nothing in the claim precludes switch processing after
`
`detecting the event and before storing the event and date/time information.
`
`This disclosure of Ono aligns with Figure A12 created by Dr. Madisetti
`
`(EX2001, ¶36, Figure A1), as illustrated below:
`
`
`2 Apple does not concede that Dr. Madisetti’s analysis is correct.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`Ono (APPLE-1101)
`[1f]/[20f] store event information
`
`Ono (APPLE-1101)
`
`[1d]/[20d] store movement data
`
`
`
`LoganTree argues that Apple “improperly conflates” elements [1d] and [1f]
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(and claims 39 and 41) “by repeating its cites to Ono’s disclosures” because “any
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`reference disclosing Element 1d [or claim 39] would inherently disclose this
`
`portion of Element 1f [or claim 41] as well” and Apple’s analysis of these elements
`
`“would essentially moot, or read out, the first limitation of Element 1f [or claim
`
`41].” POR, 9-10, 26, 35. LoganTree is wrong because disclosure of the processor
`
`storing movement data, user-defined operational parameters, and predetermined
`
`thresholds (as allegedly required by element [1d] and claim 39) is not inherent
`
`disclosure of “storing first event information related to the detected first user-
`
`defined event” (the first limitation of element [1f]) and storing first event
`
`information “indicating that the predetermined threshold is met” (claim 41). A
`
`reference can disclose element [1d] (or claim 39) but not the first limitation of
`
`element [1f] (or claim 41), as evident by the reexamination history. APPLE-1007,
`
`81-88, 216. During reexamination, the applicant did not dispute that the references
`
`disclosed element [1d] but argued that the references did not disclose the first
`
`limitation of element [1f] because the microprocessor did not detect an event based
`
`on the movement data (element [1e]) and thus did not store event information
`
`related to the detected event (element [1f]). Id.
`
`LoganTree’s cited cases do not support LoganTree’s arguments. POR, 26.
`
`Rather, Apple’s reliance on the same disclosures of Ono for elements [1d] and [1f]
`
`is in no way improper, but rather is consistent with “the principle that in [an]
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`obviousness analysis, a single element, feature, or mechanism can ordinarily
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`satisfy multiple claim limitations, including by performing multiple claimed
`
`functions.” Google LLC v. Personal Audio, LLC, No. 2017-1162, 12 (Fed. Cir,
`
`2018) (non-precedential) (affirming PTAB Decision in IPR2015-00845) (citing
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Rodime PLC v.
`
`Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Kelley, 305 F. 2d
`
`909, 915-16 (CCPA 1962)). Indeed, even the same disclosure of the ’576 patent
`
`can be read as supporting the “movement data” and “user-defined operational
`
`parameters” of element [1d], “predetermined threshold” of claim 39, and the
`
`“event information” of element [1f] and claim 41. APPLE-1001, 5:62-6:15
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, LoganTree has no basis for arguing that similar
`
`disclosure in Ono fails to satisfy elements [1d] and [1f] and claims 39 and 41.
`
` Ono teaches storing first event information “along with first
`time stamp information reflecting a time at which the
`movement data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred” (elements [1f], [20f]), storing “date information
`associated with the first time stamp information” (claim 30),
`and storing “the first time stamp information in association
`with said first event information” (claim 42)
`LoganTree acknowledges that the real time stored in Ono’s time-counting
`
`register may “coincide with” the movement data that caused the occurrence of the
`
`user-defined event but argues that this fails to disclose the claimed “time stamp
`
`information” because “neither the user-defined event nor the movement data
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`causing that event prompts Ono to store that time.” POR, 27. Here again,
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00037
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP1
`
`
`
`
`LoganTree’s arguments imply a claim construc