UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2022-00037
`Patent 6,059,576
`
`Patent Owner LoganTree LP’s
`Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2022-00037
`Patent 6,059,576
`
`Patent Owner LoganTree LP’s
`Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`1
`
`
`
`’576 Patent: Overview
`The ’576 patent is directed to a portable, self-contained
`device for monitoring movement of body parts during
`physical activity.
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 1; EX1001 at 2:6-9]
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 3]
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: Claim 1
`Claim Language
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source,
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the operation of said device;
`
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`[’136 Pat. at 8:36-57 (Pet. at 13-14)]
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet. at vii]
`
`3
`
`Elem.
`
`Pre
`
`1a
`
`1b
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1pre
`
`“A portable, self-
`contained device for
`monitoring
`movement of body
`parts during physical
`activity, said device
`comprising:”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1a
`
`“a movement sensor
`capable of measuring
`data associated with
`unrestrained
`movement in any
`direction and
`generating signals
`indicative of said
`movement;”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1b
`
`“a power source;”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1c
`
`“a microprocessor
`connected to said
`movement sensor
`and to said power
`source,”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1d
`
`“said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and
`responding to said movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters,”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1e
`
`“detecting a first user-
`defined event based on the
`movement data and at least
`one of the user-defined
`operational parameters
`regarding the movement
`data, and”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1f
`
`“storing first event
`information related to the
`detected first user-
`defined event along with
`first time stamp
`information reflecting a
`time at which the
`movement data causing
`the first user-defined
`event occurred;”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1
`
`least one user
`“at
`input connected to
`said microprocessor
`for
`controlling
`the
`operation
`of
`said
`device;”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1h
`
`“a real-time clock
`connected to said
`microprocessor;
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1i
`
`“memory for
`storing said
`movement data;
`and”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1j
`
`“an output indicator
`connected to said
`microprocessor for
`signaling the
`occurrence of user-
`defined events;”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claim Elements: 1k
`
`said
`“wherein
`sensor
`movement
`measures the angle
`and velocity of said
`movement.”
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 5; EX1002 at 40; Sur-Reply., Paper 22 at 4-5]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 5; EX1107 at 34]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`September 4, 2014 Interview:
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 6; EX1107 at 240]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`October 14, 2014 amendment and argument:
`
`. . .
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 6; EX1107 at 218-19]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`December 15,2014 interview:
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 6-7; EX1107 at 93]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`December 15,2014 interview:
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 7; EX1107 at 92-93]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`January 9, 2015 argument:
`
`[EX1100 at p.80 (Resp. at 7)]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`January 9, 2015 argument:
`January 9, 2015 argument:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 7-8; EX1107 at 83]
`
`23
`
`
`
`1j
`X
`
`1k
`X
`
`X
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds: Claim 1
`Ground Pre 1a
`1b
`1c
`1d
`1e
`1f
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`2
`X
`3A
`3B
`4
`5A
`5B
`6A
`6B
`7
`8A
`8B
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[See generally, Pet., Paper 3 at 27-64 (Resp.,
`Paper 17 at 18-31)]
`
`24
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds: Cited Art
`Ground Ono Hutchings Amano Conlan Hickman Kaufman
`1
`X
`X
`2
`X
`X
`3A
`X
`X
`3B
`X
`X
`4
`X
`X
`5A
`X
`X
`5B
`X
`X
`6A
`X
`X
`6B
`X
`X
`7
`X
`X
`8A
`X
`X
`8B
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`Notes
`
`(Dependent claims only)
`
`(Dependent claims only)
`
`(Dependent claims only)
`
`(Dependent claims only)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[see generally Pet., Paper 3]
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ono (EX1101)
`Ono is a simple wristwatch pedometer that counts steps
`with a single one-axis accelerometer:
`
`[Resp. at 18]
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 9, 18; EX1101 at Figs. 1, 3 ]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`26
`
`
`
`Ono (EX1101)
`Ono uses a simple, sensor-centric architecture:
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 18, 20; EX2001 at ¶¶ 58, 61]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 20; EX1101 at Fig. 14]
`
`27
`
`
`
`Ono Fails
`
`1a
`
`1k
`
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement;
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 21; EX1101 at Fig. 3]
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`28
`
`
`
`Ono (EX1101)
`To the extent Ono does detect an event, it responds by
`merely sounding an alarm:
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 9; EX2001 at ¶ 48]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`29
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 40; EX1101 at Fig. 18]
`
`
`
`Ono Fails
`
`1f
`
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 21; EX1101 at Fig. 3]
`
`30
`
`
`
`Hutchings (EX1102)
`Hutchings is a complex athletic tracking device with multiple
`accelerometers, gyroscopes, and processors.
`
`[Resp. at 18]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 10; EX1102 at Figs. 1, 6 ]
`31
`
`
`
`Hutchings Fails
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 24-31]
`
`32
`
`
`
`Ono and Hutchings are Incompatible
`A POSITA would not have combined Ono with
`Hutchings:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 26; Resp., Paper 17 at 18-20]
`
`33
`
`
`
`Ono and Hutchings are Incompatible
`Petitioner failed to adequately argue that a
`POSITA would have expected success in
`combining Ono with Hutchings:
`
`[Pet. at 26 (Resp. at 6)]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`34
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Petitioner’s Arguments
`Ono
`Hutchings
`(Argued)
`Not argued
`“unrestrained movement” and
`“in any direction” are not argued.
`(Argued)
`(Argued)
`
`“unrestrained movement” is not argued.
`
`Not argued
`(Argued)
`“based on user-defined operational parameters” is
`not argued.
`“based on … user-defined operational parameters”
`and “detecting [an] … event” are not argued.
`De minimis argument
`Not argued
`Not argued
`Not argued
`Not argued
`Measurement of “the angle … of movement” is
`not argued.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`35
`
`Elem
`1pre
`1a
`1b
`1c
`1d
`
`1e
`1f
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`(Argued)
`(Argued)
`(Argued)
`(Argued)
`
`Not argued
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`Claim Language
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source,
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the operation of said device;
`
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`[’136 Pat. at 8:36-57 (Pet. at 13-14)]
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`36
`
`Elem.
`
`Pre
`
`1a
`
`1b
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`The “unrestrained” limitation was added in
`prosecution:
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 5; EX1002 at 40; Sur-Reply., Paper 22 at 4-5]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`37
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`The Petition entirely fails to argue the
`“unrestrained movement” limitation:
`
`\
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`38
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 28]
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 28-29]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`
`Reply:
`
`Burden:
`
`“In an inter partes review, the burden
`of persuasion is on the petitioner to
`prove ‘unpatentability by a prepon-
`derance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. §
`316(e), and that burden never shifts to
`the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware,
`800 F.3d at 1378.
`
`Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 6
`(citing Magnum Oil Tools,
`1364 F.3d at 1375-77)
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 7]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`40
`
`
`
`Reply:
`
`Element 1a
`
`Petition:
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 7]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`41
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 22]
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`The Reply invents an entirely new argument,
`based on Hutchings at 3:22-26:
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 7; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 5-6]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`42
`
`
`
`Element 1a
`But the relevant portion of the Petition does not
`mention “absolute motion of a person,” and
`discusses only 8:53-59 of Hutchings:
`Original argument:
`Original basis:
`“The linear accelerometers are
`configured to measure accelerations
`in three dimensions, along the
`direction of the foot as it travels
`during each step. Unit 50 may
`preferably contain rotational sensors
`employed to measure ϴx ϴy and ϴz
`signals. Thus the rotational sensors
`provide the angle of rotation along
`each axis of the translational
`coordinate.” (EX1102 at 8:53-59)
`
`“Ono-Hutchings’ movement sensor
`measures unrestrained movement in any
`direction through accelerometers that
`measure accelerations in three
`dimensions, and rotational sensors that
`provide the angle of rotation along each
`axis of the translational coordinate.
`APPLE-1102, […] 8:44-59, […].” (Pet. at
`p.28-29)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`43
`
`
`
`Elements 1c-1f
`Claim Language
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source,
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the operation of said device;
`
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`[’136 Pat. at 8:36-57 (Pet. at 13-14)]
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`44
`
`Elem.
`
`Pre
`
`1a
`
`1b
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`
`
`Elem.
`
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f(1)
`
`1f(2)
`
`Hutchings
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`“based on user-defined operational
`parameters” is not argued.
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`“based on … user-defined
`operational parameters” and
`“detecting a first user-defined
`event” are not argued.
`De minimis argument
`
`Elements 1c-1f (Ground 1)
`Claim Language
`Ono
`a microprocessor connected to said movement
`(Argued)
`sensor and to said power source,
`said microprocessor capable of receiving,
`interpreting, storing and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based
`on the movement data and at least one of
`the user-defined operational parameters
`regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to
`the detected first user-defined event …
`… along with first time stamp information
`reflecting a time at which the movement
`data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred;
`
`(Argued)
`
`De minimis argument
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`45
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1f(1)
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event …
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 52; Resp., Paper 17 at 25-26]
`
`46
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1f(1)
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event …
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence [Pet., Paper 3 at 50-51; Resp., Paper 27 at 25-26]
`
`47
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 52; Resp., Paper 17 at 25-26]
`[EX1101 at 16:49-51; Resp., Paper 17 at 26-27]
`
`48
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 50-51; Resp., Paper 17 at 25-26]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`49
`
`
`
`Element 1d (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1d
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data based on
`user-defined operational parameters
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence [Pet., Paper 3 at 38-39; Resp., Paper 17 at 25]
`
`50
`
`
`
`Element 1d (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1d
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data based on
`user-defined operational parameters
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence [Pet., Paper 3 at 35-36; Resp., Paper 17 at 25; Sur-Reply at n.6]
`
`51
`
`
`
`Element 1e (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1e
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 48; Sur-Reply at n.6]
`
`52
`
`
`
`Element 1e (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1e
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 49; Resp., Paper 17 at 9]
`
`53
`
`
`
`Elem.
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f(1)
`
`1f(2)
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving,
`interpreting, storing and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters,
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based
`on the movement data and at least one of
`the user-defined operational parameters […]
`
`storing first event information related to
`the detected first user-defined event …
`
`Elements 1c-1f (Ground 1)
`Claim Language
`Petitioner’s Argument
`“The number of steps taken in the last 10 seconds,
`mean walking
`speed,
`steps/minute, distance-
`walked… collectively form movement data that the
`microprocessor … stores” [Pet. at 38]
`“the stride lengths, the target distance, and the
`target number of steps set by the user are user-
`defined operational parameters ...” [Pet. at 39],
`(which are stored in registers). [Pet. at 35]
`“detects a user-defined event (‘the distance-walked
`has reached the target distance OH’…) based on …”
`[Pet. at 45]
`“Ono stores in RAM the user-defined operational
`parameters and the movement data used to detect
`the user-defined event, both of which are event
`information related to the detected user-defined
`event.” [Pet. at 50]
`“Ono stores time stamp information in RAM along
`with the event information: ‘RAM 101 is provided
`with a time-counting register T for storing the
`present-time data’ …” [Pet. at 50-51]
`
`… along with first time stamp information
`reflecting a time at which the movement
`data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`54
`
`
`
`Elem.
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f(1)
`
`1f(2)
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving,
`interpreting, storing and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined
`operational parameters,
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based
`on the movement data and at least one of
`the user-defined operational parameters […]
`
`storing first event information related to
`the detected first user-defined event …
`
`Elements 1c-1f (Ground 1)
`Claim Language
`Petitioner’s Argument
`“The number of steps taken in the last 10 seconds,
`mean walking
`speed,
`steps/minute, distance-
`walked… collectively form movement data that the
`microprocessor … stores” [Pet. at 38]
`“the stride lengths, the target distance, and the
`target number of steps set by the user are user-
`defined operational parameters ...” [Pet. at 39],
`(which are stored in registers). [Pet. at 35]
`“detects a user-defined event (‘the distance-walked
`has reached the target distance OH’…) based on …”
`[Pet. at 45]
`“Ono stores in RAM the user-defined operational
`parameters and the movement data used to detect
`the user-defined event, both of which are event
`information related to the detected user-defined
`event.” [Pet. at 50]
`“Ono stores time stamp information in RAM along
`with the event information: ‘RAM 101 is provided
`with a time-counting register T for storing the
`present-time data’ …” [Pet. at 50-51]
`
`… along with first time stamp information
`reflecting a time at which the movement
`data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`
`55
`
`
`
`Element 1d (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1d
`
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data based on
`user-defined operational parameters
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 38-39; Resp., Paper 17 at 25]
`
`56
`
`
`
`Element 1e (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1e
`
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 48; Sur-Reply at n.6]
`
`57
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1f(1)
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event …
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence [Pet., Paper 3 at 50-51; Resp., Paper 17 at 25-26]
`
`58
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`
`1f(1)
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event …
`1f(2) … along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-
`defined event occurred;
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`59
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`First flaw: Petitioner’s argument relies on saving the time
`that the user presses a switch:
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`60
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`…but the reexamination history is clear: the time stamp
`must reflect when the movement data occurred, rather
`than when the data was saved:
`
`[EX1007 at 240; Resp., Paper 17 at 6]
`
`[EX1007 at 93; Resp., Paper 17 at 7]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`61
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`Second flaw: Petitioner relies on the “date and duration” as
`the “time at which the movement data… occurred”:
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`62
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 28]
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`Second flaw: Petitioner relies on the “date and duration” as
`the “time at which the movement data… occurred”:
`
`Reply, Paper 21 at 20; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 10]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`63
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`…but an “elapsed time or duration” is not “a time at which
`the movement data … occurred”:
`
`The ’576 Patent:
`“This history information may include …
`the number, date and time the device 12
`reached an event threshold; when, how
`long, and how many times the device 12
`powered down; …”
`
`EX1001 at 8:46-48 (Sur-reply at 10).
`
`Ono:
`“At the lower portion is disposed
`another segment-display section 102c
`for displaying time and time durations
`measured.”
`
`EX1101 at 14:35-37 (Sur-reply at 10).
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`64
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`Third flaw: Petitioner relies on “the red processing path” for
`its argument that Ono “explicitly shows detecting a user-
`defined event … and thereafter storing … information…”:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 12; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 9]
`
`65
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`…but the “red processing path” is Petitioner’s own markup
`on a collated diagram; Ono does not disclose this scenario:
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 12; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 9]
`
`[EX1101 at Figs. 15, 18, 20; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 9]
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`66
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Second Argument, Ground 1)
`Fourth flaw: if the user does intervene by pressing the
`switch after hearing the alarm, then the information stored
`to register D would not be “the time at which the
`movement data … occurred”:
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 56; Resp., Paper 17 at 29]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`67
`
`
`
`Ground 3A: Petitioner’s Arguments
`Ono
`Hutchings
`Conlan
`pre
`(Argued)
`Not argued
`Not argued
`“unrestrained movement” is not
`1a “unrestrained movement” and
`“in any direction” are not argued.
`argued.
`1b
`(Argued)
`Not argued
`1c
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`Partially argued (for the alleged disclosure of
`storing movement data from the
`microprocessor)
`
`Not argued
`
`Partially argued (for the alleged disclosure of a
`push-button to record events and time stamps)
`Not argued
`
`(Argued)
`“based on user-defined
`operational parameters” is not
`argued.
`“based on … user-defined oper-
`ational parameters” and “detect-
`ing [an] … event” are not argued.
`De minimis argument
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`(Argued)
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`Measurement of “the angle … of
`movement” is not argued.
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Not argued
`
`Partially argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`68
`
`
`
`Conlan (EX1010)
`Conlan is a hybrid activity monitor that uses buttons to track the user’s
`condition
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 12; EX1010 at Figs. 5, 6]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`69
`
`
`
`Conlan is not independent
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 12; EX1010 at Figs. 5]
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 20; EX1010 at 6:38-44]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`70
`
`
`
`Ono-Hutchings-Conlan Combination
`The Petition entirely fails to argue that a POSITA would have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the
`Ono-Hutchings device to add elements from Conlan.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 86-88; Resp., Paper 17 at 39-40]
`71
`
`
`
`Ono-Hutchings-Conlan Combination
`Petitioner’s Reply attempts to incorporate Dr. Kenny’s
`arguments by reference—but those arguments are entirely
`absent from the Petition.
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 24-25; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 14-15]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`72
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s argument, Ground 3A)
`Petitioner’s arguments for Ono-Hutchings-Conlan simply
`elaborate on its misguided second argument for Element 1f
`(in Ground 1):
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 90; Resp., Paper 17 at 40-41]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`73
`
`
`
`Ground 4: Petitioner’s Arguments
`Ono
`Hutchings
`Kaufman
`pre
`(Argued)
`Not argued
`Not argued
`“unrestrained movement” is not
`1a “unrestrained movement” and
`“in any direction” are not argued.
`argued.
`1b
`(Argued)
`Not argued
`1c
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Partially argued
`
`Partially argued
`
`Partially argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`74
`
`(Argued)
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`(Argued)
`
`Not argued
`
`(Argued)
`“based on user-defined
`operational parameters” is not
`argued.
`“based on … user-defined oper-
`ational parameters” and “detect-
`ing [an] … event” are not argued.
`De minimis argument
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`
`Not argued
`Measurement of “the angle … of
`movement” is not argued.
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`
`
`Kaufman (EX1105)
`
`Kaufman is directed to “an audible exercise monitoring device and repetition
`counter” “for monitoring the repetitive performance of an exercise.”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Resp., Paper 17 at 15; EX1105 at Fig. 1]
`
`75
`
`
`
`Ono-Hutchings-Kaufman Combination
`The Petition entirely fails to argue that a POSITA would have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the
`Ono-Hutchings device to add elements from Kaufman.
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 98-99; Resp., Paper 17 at 45]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`76
`
`
`
`Ono-Hutchings-Kaufman Combination
`Petitioner’s Reply attempts to incorporate Dr. Kenny’s
`arguments by reference—but those arguments are entirely
`absent from the Petition.
`
`[Reply, Paper 21 at 27; Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 17]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`77
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s argument, Ground 4)
`Petitioner’s arguments for Ono-Hutchings-Kaufman
`Element 1e simply elaborate on its arguments from Ground
`1:
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 101; Resp., Paper 17 at 46-47]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`78
`
`
`
`Element 1f (Petitioner’s argument, Ground 4)
`Petitioner’s arguments for Ono-Hutchings-Kaufman
`Element 1f simply rely on arguments for Element 1e:
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 101; Resp., Paper 17 at 46-47]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`79
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`Claim Language
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction and
`generating signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source,
`said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters,
`detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and
`storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along with first time stamp
`information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred;
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the operation of said device;
`
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`[’136 Pat. at 8:36-57 (Pet. at 13-14)]
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`[Pet., Paper 3 at vii]
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`80
`
`Elem.
`
`Pre
`
`1a
`
`1b
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`1h
`1i
`1j
`1k
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`Petition:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 63-64; Resp., Paper 17 at 31)]
`
`81
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`1k
`Reply:
`
`[Reply., Paper 21 at 7]
`
`Burden:
`
`“In an inter partes review, the burden
`of persuasion is on the petitioner to
`prove ‘unpatentability by a prepon-
`derance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. §
`316(e), and that burden never shifts to
`the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware,
`800 F.3d at 1378.
`
`Sur-Reply, Paper 22 at 6
`(citing Magnum Oil Tools,
`1364 F.3d at 1375-77)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`82
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`1k
`Reply:
`
`[Reply., Paper 21 at 7]
`
`Burden:
`
`“with
`identify,
`the petition must
`particularity, . . . the grounds on which
`the challenge to each claim is based,
`and the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge . . .”
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`83
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`1k
`Reply:
`
`[Reply., Paper 21 at 7]
`
`Burden:
`
`“These rules help ensure that the
`owner of a challenged patent receives
`notice of and a fair opportunity to
`meet alleged grounds of invalidity.”
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
`1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`84
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`1k
`Reply:
`
`Petition:
`
`[Reply., Paper 21 at 7]
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 64]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`85
`
`
`
`Element 1k
`
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`1k
`Reply:
`
`Petition, Element [1a]:
`
`[Reply., Paper 21 at 7]
`
`[Pet., Paper 3 at 28]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
