`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Allum, Raymond, and Conlan (ARC) render the claims obvious under
`Ground 1 .......................................................................................................... 2 
`A.  A POSITA would have combined Conlan with Allum and Raymond ...... 2 
`B.  ARC renders obvious feature [1d-3] .......................................................... 6 
`  Allum’s time stamp information reflects a time at which the
`movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred .............. 6 
`  ARC renders [1d-3] obvious at least because Raymond’s RT clock
`provides time-stamp information that is stored in the ARC system ... 12 
`C.  ARC renders obvious feature [1e] ............................................................ 14 
`D.  ARC renders obvious “interpreting … physical movement data based on
`user-defined operational parameters and a real-time clock” (element
`[20c]) ........................................................................................................ 15 
`  It would have been obvious to a POSITA that that Allum’s system
`generates fall warnings by interpreting the physical movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters .................................... 15 
`  Allum renders obvious interpreting physical movement data based on
`a real-time clock .................................................................................. 16 
`  ARC renders obvious interpreting physical movement data based on a
`real-time clock ..................................................................................... 18 
`E.  ARC renders obvious [2] .......................................................................... 19 
`F.  ARC renders obvious [3] .......................................................................... 20 
`De Remer and Gaudet are analogous art to ARC .......................................... 23 
`II. 
`III.  A POSITA would have combined GESINK and Raymond .......................... 25 
`IV.  Gesink and Raymond render [20c] obvious .................................................. 27 
`V.  Gesink and Raymond render [20f] obvious ................................................... 28 
`VI.  Construction of “movement sensor”.............................................................. 28 
`VII.  DR. MADISETTI’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANY
`WEIGHT ........................................................................................................ 29 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 to Brann. (“the ’576 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’576 Patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`
`Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Thomas Kenny
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,149 (“Allum”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,778,882 (“Raymond”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 (“Conlan”)
`
`Decision Dismissing Petitions, Fitbit, Inc.. v. LoganTree LP,
`IPR2017-00256 and IPR2017-00258, April 7, 2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,705 (“Gaudet”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,412,801 (“de Remer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 (“Gesink”)
`
`EP0045656B1 (“Beadles”)
`
`International Publication WO 97/39677 (“Lim”)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,001,096 (“Farber”)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`
`APPLE-1023
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`
`APPLE-1026
`
`
`APPLE-1027
`
`
`APPLE-1028
`
`APPLE-1029
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`U.S. Patent 5,212,774 (“Grider”)
`
`ADXL50 Datasheet: Monolithic Accelerometer with Signal
`Conditioning, Analog Devices, Inc., 1996
`
`Airbags Boom When IC Accelerometer Sees 50G, Frank
`Goodenough, Electronic Design, Penton Publishing, Aug. 8,
`1991
`
`Northrop Grumman LITEF: µFORS-36m / -1 - Fiber Optic
`Rate Sensors,
`https://www.litef.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ablage/Produkte/Da
`tenblaetter/Datasheet_uFORS-36m_-
`1_Fiber_Optic_Rate_Sensors_01.pdf, Northrop Grumman, last
`visited Sept. 3, 2021
`
`ADS-C232 Specification, https://watson-gyro.com/wp-
`content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2020/10/ADS-C232-
`1AD_Spec.pdf, Watson Industries, Inc., last visited Sept. 3,
`2021
`
`Analog Dialogue, Analog Devices, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1996
`
`Scheduling Order, Logantree LP, v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00397,
`W.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2021
`
`“2021 Discretionary Denials Have Passed 100, But Are
`Slowing,” Dani Krass, Law360, July 21, 2021
`
`Cimoo Song et al., Commercial Vision of silicon-based inertial
`sensors, Sensors and Actuators A 66, pp. 231-236, 1998
`
`C.V. Ramakrishnan, Current Trends in Engineering Practice,
`ISBN-10: 81-7319-689-3, 2006
`
`U.S. Patent 5,818,568 (“Onaga”)
`
`“Leahy And Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Support
`American Innovation And Reduce Litigation”, Sep. 29, 2021,
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1030
`
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`
`APPLE-1032
`
`
`APPLE-1033
`
`
`APPLE-1034
`
`
`APPLE-1035
`
`
`APPLE-1036
`
`
`APPLE-1037
`
`
`APPLE-1038
`
`
`APPLE-1039
`
`
`APPLE-1040
`
`APPLE-1041
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`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
`
`Complaint, Logantree LP, v. LG Electronics, Inc., 4:21-cv-
`00332, E.D. Tex., Apr. 27, 2021
`
`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
`
`Transcript of Dr. Madisetti Deposition taken on Feb. 17, 2023
`
`Definition of “interpret” in Webster’s Third New International
`Dictionary, 1182, 1993
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`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, 20-21, 28, 39-40, 42.
`
`However, the standard for proving unpatentability of a patent claim in an
`
`IPR is a “preponderance of the evidence,” not “clear and convincing evidence.” 35
`
`U.S.C. §316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the
`
`petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.”).
`
`As demonstrated in the Petition and hereinbelow, Apple has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25, 30-32, 36, 39-42, 45-
`
`51, 61-65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable. LoganTree’s Response fails to rebut
`
`positions advanced in Apple’s Petition and supporting evidence including Dr.
`
`Kenny’s corroborated testimony. Indeed, rather than squarely confronting the
`
`Petition’s substantial evidence of unpatentability, the POR mischaracterizes
`
`Apple’s positions and the prior art. For support, the POR relies on testimony from
`
`a witness, Dr. Madisetti, who, unlike Dr. Kenny, provides no corroborating
`
`evidence or factual analysis in support of his conclusions and refused to provide
`
`clarification of his testimony during deposition. Cf. TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco
`
`Systems Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (reversing finding of
`
`obviousness relying on an “ipse dixit declaration”).
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`As explained in the Petition and addressed below, the prior art renders
`
`obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`ALLUM, RAYMOND, AND CONLAN (ARC) RENDER THE
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS UNDER GROUND 1
`A. A POSITA would have combined Conlan with Allum and
`Raymond
`LoganTree argues that a POSITA would not have combined ARC because
`
`“Allum discloses a design scheme where the device tells the user … about the
`
`user’s conditions” and “the pushbuttons in Conlan that Petitioner cites are designed
`
`for the user to tell the device about the user’s condition.” POR, 21-22. LoganTree
`
`contends that “Allum teaches away from including inputs based on user feelings”
`
`and that Apple has not “provided clear-and-convincing evidence” of a reasonable
`
`expectation of success because (1) “the patients who would use the Allum device
`
`are inherently ‘prone to abnormal falling’”; and (2) the ARC combination would
`
`have “confuse[d] the [Allum] device’s designed monitoring and warning
`
`operations.” Id. LoganTree’s arguments should be dismissed for several reasons.
`
`First, LoganTree argues for the wrong standard of proof. As noted above, a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, and not clear-and-convincing evidence, is the
`
`standard for IPRs.
`
`Second, nowhere does Allum teach that: its system is limited to systems that
`
`cannot include user input; that it cannot be modified to include user input buttons;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`or that it, more generally, precludes user provision of the user’s conditions (e.g.,
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`dizziness) to the device via manual buttons. LoganTree nor its expert provides any
`
`support for asserting that Allum’s “design scheme and stated purpose” cannot
`
`incorporate user buttons. Thus, LoganTree’s arguments or its expert’s statements
`
`should be entitled to little or no weight. 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.”). Indeed, as Allum relates to providing “a
`
`diagnostic and a rehabilitory tool for subjects who are prone to abnormal falling
`
`and who wish to improve their movement control,” providing an additional means
`
`of capturing user-specified event information, particularly those related to user
`
`feelings prior to falling (e.g., dizziness, nausea), would be consistent with Allum’s
`
`goals. APPLE-1008, 3:55-64.
`
`Moreover, LoganTree conflates subjects that are “prone to abnormal falling”
`
`with subjects that are not “able to sense or feel instability.” POR, 21-22. Subjects
`
`that are “prone to abnormal falling” are not necessarily subjects that are not “able
`
`to sense or feel instability.” Indeed, a subject that begins to sense the occurrence
`
`of a particular event,” such as “dizziness,” is capable of pushing a button to
`
`indicate the beginning of an event corresponding to dizziness. APPLE-1010, 6:38-
`
`46; APPLE-1003, ¶[78]. LoganTree fails to consider that Allum envisions a
`
`certain physical capability of subjects (“subject’s control”) to physically react to
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`warnings when they are about to fall (e.g., by adjusting their body in response to a
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`warning to prevent the fall). APPLE-1008, 5:30-50, 14:1-21. That is, Allum’s
`
`users are not so disabled that they are unable to push buttons to express other
`
`conditions they are feeling.
`
`Third, LoganTree argues that “Allum does not teach or suggest to a POSITA
`
`that it should be modified to include Conlan’s pushbuttons for user input.” POR,
`
`21, 22. However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to
`
`combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." See
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004).
`
`Fourth, contrary to LoganTree’s assertions, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine Conlan’s teachings (e.g., Conlan’s buttons) with the Allum-
`
`Raymond system to realize several benefits. APPLE-1003, ¶¶[76]-[84]. One
`
`example benefit is to provide an additional method in the Allum-Raymond system
`
`to gather movement data that relates to a particular type of event specified by the
`
`user input buttons. Id., ¶¶[78]-[79]; Pet. 21-22; APPLE-1010, 6:38-46. Conlan’s
`
`teachings, when incorporated into the Allum-Raymond system, would have
`
`allowed a user to “choose the type of data which is to be recorded,” “assign event
`
`variables,” and “apply markets to recorded data.” Id., 11:58-66; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶[81]. This would allow the user or a clinician to collect different types of
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`movement data, and filter movement data to identify, store, and/or display data of
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`user interest. APPLE-1010, 1:65-2:2, 9:1-15, 5:64-6:37, 4:5-57, 10:6-65, see also
`
`FIGS. 11, 14, 18, 2; APPLE-1003, ¶[80]. For instance, by pressing a button to
`
`signal the onset of a condition (e.g., dizziness, nausea), ARC’s device enables a
`
`user to initiate data collection around the particular condition, which can
`
`subsequently be analyzed, e.g., by a physician. APPLE-1008, 7:21-49, 8:54-65;
`
`see also Pet., 22 (describing other combination benefits).
`
`Rather than addressing the multiple motivations provided by combining the
`
`teachings of ARC and corresponding expectations of success, LoganTree relies on
`
`unsupported assertions that such a combination would have “confuse[d] the
`
`[Allum] device’s designed monitoring and warning operations.” POR, 22.
`
`LoganTree provides no further elaboration or examples of the alleged confusion.
`
`Because LoganTree fails to explain how Allum’s device would be confused or
`
`what it means by “confused,” Apple cannot properly address this argument.
`
`Even if such an argument were to have any merit (which it does not),
`
`LoganTree’s failure to address the benefits and reasons to combine Conlan with
`
`Allum and Raymond noted in the Petition are fatal. The Federal Circuit has held
`
`that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
`
`disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”
`
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373,
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, “obviousness ‘does not require that the motivation
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`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).
`
`B. ARC renders obvious feature [1d-3]
`
`Allum’s time stamp information reflects a time at which the
`movement data causing the first user-defined event
`occurred
`LoganTree argues that ARC does not render obvious the second half of
`
`feature [1d-3], namely “storing … first time stamp information reflecting a time at
`
`which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred.” POR, 23-
`
`27. LoganTree’s argument relies on its uncorroborated and incorrect assertions
`
`that Allum’s time stamp reflects a time at which a warning was logged, not when
`
`movement data occurred. POR, 23.
`
`As shown below in Allum’s FIG. 6, after collecting and sampling real-time
`
`data from sensors 12, the body sway angle and angular velocity can be displayed to
`
`the user and an operator through displays and “a fall warning is provided when the
`
`subject's trunk sway is within one degree of the cone of stability” (steps 132-146)
`
`APPLE-1008, 15:24-50, FIGS. 3, 5; Pet., 32. The fall warnings are logged for later
`
`retrieval at step 144. APPLE-1008, 15:50-55. Allum discloses that “[t]he number
`
`of times that a feedback system issues a warning signal to the subject that his
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`upper body is approaching his cone of stability may be saved in the processor
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`system memory 16, along with the circumstances involved (e.g., time of day,
`
`preceding pitch and roll velocities, etc.)” APPLE-1008, 14:47-57.
`
`The quantified body sway information that is provided for display “includes:
`
`time histories of the subject's angular sway deviations and angular velocity in the
`
`roll and pitch directions, … a measurement of the total vectorial angular path
`
`transversed by the subject's upper body during the examination trial period … .”
`
`APPLE-1008, 4:23-32.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`One example of the time-histories of movement data is shown below in
`
`Allum’s FIG. 3. Pet., 10, 17-18, 32-33. Allum explains that “[a] time history of
`
`the subject's angular sway deviations 46 and angular sway velocity 48 in the roll
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`and pitch directions, over a selected examination trial period, is provided in the
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`center of the insert displays 42 and 44, respectively. The displacement in a
`
`horizontal direction of an individual point in the time history displays 46 and 48
`
`from the center of the insert displays 42 and 44 represents degrees of roll or
`
`degrees per second of roll, respectively.” APPLE-1008, 10:10-17. Display 40 “is
`
`preferably updated at a rate of at least four times per second during the
`
`examination trial, which may typically last 10-30 seconds.” Id., 10:50-53.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`APPLE-1008, FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`As can be appreciated from the foregoing, Allum’s time history, including
`
`time of day information, relates to a subject's angular sway deviations and angular
`
`velocity (“movement data”) during the examination trial period, and not when data
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`such as a warning is logged, contrary to LoganTree’s assertions.1 This time history
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`is part of the “circumstances” data that is obtained during the examination period
`
`and saved along with the logged fall warning. APPLE-1008, 14:47-57; APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶[120]. Indeed, the time history information displayed in FIG. 3 would not
`
`make sense if it corresponded to the time at which the fall warning is logged, as
`
`LoganTree contends.2 Accordingly, the “circumstances” data that is stored along
`
`
`1 LoganTree’s reliance on the alleged distinction of “update time” in prosecution
`
`history is entirely misplaced as Allum’s logging time does not correspond to the
`
`claimed time-stamp.
`
`2 “LoganTree’s assertion that Allum’s ‘time of day’ does not “reflect[] a time at
`
`which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred” is not
`
`supported and inconsistent with Allum’s teachings. POR, 23-26. Allum discloses
`
`a system for capturing information related to the physical condition of a user to
`
`provide “both a diagnostic and a rehabilitory tool for subjects who are prone to
`
`abnormal falling or who wish to improve their movement control,” which includes
`
`feedback to aid a user’s balance and prevent a fall. APPLE-1008, 3:60-62. In the
`
`context of such a system, storing “time of day” when a fall warning is issued, as
`
`taught by Allum, would be understood to be storing time information reflective of
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`with the fall warnings include time history or time of day information that is “first
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the
`
`first user-defined event occurred.” APPLE-1008, 14:47-57.
`
`
`
`ARC renders [1d-3] obvious at least because Raymond’s RT
`clock provides time-stamp information that is stored in the
`ARC system
`LoganTree also argues that the Petition’s second mapping, involving Allum
`
`and Raymond’s teachings, does not render [1d-3] obvious because “nothing in
`
`Petitioner’s citations discloses associating the ‘time-index’ or ‘time stamp[]’ with
`
`any first event information.” POR, 26-27. This is incorrect.
`
`For the second mapping, the Petition refers to §III.A.3, which explains that
`
`“[i]t would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate a RT clock in Allum’s
`
`device so that Allum’s device can use a clock for logging time information and so
`
`that it can ‘synchronize[ ] each data sampling event by initiating the data collection
`
`sequence,’ as taught by Raymond. APPLE-1009, 10:16-36; APPLE-1003, ¶[70].”
`
`
`when the corresponding physical event, i.e., the potential fall and its associated
`
`circumstances, was experienced by a user. Considering Allum’s teachings in their
`
`entirety, LoganTree’s assertions that Allum’s “time of day” teaching is somehow
`
`untethered to, i.e., not reflective of, the corresponding physical event experienced
`
`by the user is simply not credible.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Pet., 33, 17. Raymond discloses that “[a]s the data is collected, it is time stamped,
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`compressed (where appropriate) and uploaded to the database, labeled for the
`
`patient in question. The resulting health history is a combined format of objective
`
`physical parameters and subjective patient data which is time-indexed for
`
`subsequent retrieval and analysis.” APPLE-1009, 2:23-30. In the ARC system,
`
`Raymond’s time-stamp information, which can be provided in a minute packet, is
`
`stored in Allum’s memory 16 as part of the circumstances data stored along with
`
`the fall warnings in Allum, similar to the manner in which time of day information
`
`is stored in Allum (described above in §II.B.1). APPLE-1009, 1:42-57; APPLE-
`
`1008, 14:47-54, 10:10-13; APPLE-1003, ¶¶[67]-[71]; Pet. 14-18. Thus, even in
`
`ARC, Raymond’s time stamp when implemented with Allum’s teachings renders
`
`obvious “storing … first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the
`
`movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred.”
`
`Separately, LoganTree accuses Apple of failing to comply with the
`
`“particularity and specificity” requirement because “Petitioner only provides a
`
`long, unexplained string cite, which is inadequate.” POR, 26. In doing so,
`
`LoganTree ignores the Petition’s and Dr. Kenny’s detailed explanations as to
`
`teachings of the references individually and in combination, and particularly the
`
`explanation in §III.A.3 of the Petition.
`
`Moreover, the Board has determined that “long string cites of paragraphs,
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`figures, and other citations without any quotations, parentheticals or explanations
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`limitation.” Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2018-
`
`01106, Paper 30, 19-20 (PTAB 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. See e.g., Pet., §III.A.3; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶¶[67]-[71], [115]-[120].
`
`C. ARC renders obvious feature [1e]
`LoganTree argues that [1e] is not obvious because “Petitioner has not set
`
`forth clear-and-convincing evidence to show that” (1) “either Allum or Conlan
`
`taught, suggested, or gave a reason to a POSITA to combine the three references in
`
`the manner Petitioner suggests,” and (2) “a POSITA would have had reasonable
`
`expectation of success in modifying Allum’s device to add Conlan’s pushbuttons.”
`
`POR, 28. These arguments fall and rise with LoganTree’s arguments that
`
`Petitioner did not sufficiently establish a motivation to combine ARC, and are
`
`addressed above in §I.A and in the Petition.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`D. ARC renders obvious “interpreting … physical movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters and a real-time
`clock” (element [20c])
`LoganTree argues that ARC fails to render [20c] obvious because (1) Apple
`
`“fails to provide supporting argument that Allum or Raymond interpret physical
`
`movement data” and (2) ARC does not disclose interpreting physical movement
`
`data based on a real time clock. POR, 33-35. In support of its argument,
`
`LoganTree argues that “interpreting” requires an analysis. POR, 34. Because
`
`LoganTree provides for no evidence in support of this definition other than
`
`uncorroborated expert testimony (which repeats the same statement), LoganTree’s
`
`narrow interpretation of “interpreting” and arguments that follow should be
`
`dismissed. Webster’s International Dictionary defines “interpret” as “to explain or
`
`tell the meaning of; translate into intelligible or familiar language or terms present
`
`in understandable terms; to represent by means of art.” APPLE-1041. As
`
`explained below, Allum discloses feature [20c] under the proper interpretation of
`
`the term “interpreting.”
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA that that Allum’s
`system generates fall warnings by interpreting the physical
`movement data based on user-defined operational
`parameters
`As explained in [1c] and [1-d1] of the Petition, Allum teaches that the
`
`“system processor is programmed to transform the angular position and velocity
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`information provided by the sensors into useful information formats.” APPLE-
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`1008, 4:18-23, 7:21-25, Abstract; Pet., 27-30, 48; APPLE-1003, ¶¶[146]-[148].
`
`For example, based on the information received from the sensors, processor 14
`
`determines whether to issue a “warning signal to the subject that his upper body is
`
`approaching his cone of stability”—i.e., “that he is in danger of falling.” Id., 13:12-
`
`16, 14:47-49. This interpretation of the sensor data is based on “variable
`
`parameters” (“user-defined operational parameters”) “set by the operator”
`
`including the subject’s “cone of stability” and “the proximity to the cone of
`
`stability” that triggers a warning. Id., 13:16-32, 15:20-31, 13:52-62; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶[115]. To the extent an “analysis” of the movement data is required (as
`
`LoganTree contends and Apple does not concede), Allum analyzes the movement
`
`data by comparing the sensor data against the user-defined subject’s “cone of
`
`stability” and “proximity to the cone of stability” to determine whether to trigger a
`
`warning, as explained above.
`
`
`
`Allum renders obvious interpreting physical movement
`data based on a real-time clock
`Recall from §I.B.1 that Allum displays a time history of the user movements
`
`reflecting time of day information and movement data received from sensors.
`
`APPLE-1008, 4:23-32, 10:10-17, FIG. 3. Allum also discloses that “[t]he number
`
`of times that a feedback system issues a warning signal to the subject that his upper
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`body is approaching his cone of stability may be saved in the processor system
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`memory 16, along with the circumstances involved (e.g., time of day, preceding
`
`pitch and roll velocities, etc.).” APPLE-1008, 14:47-54; APPLE-1003, ¶[147].
`
`Allum interprets (e.g., explains, tells the meaning of, translates) the movement data
`
`based on the time of day to determine, store, and display the movement data and
`
`circumstances around a fall warning. For example, Allum’s system can determine
`
`and store data indicating that an event occurred at a certain time by interpreting
`
`physical movement data based on the time of day information, and store this
`
`information in memory 16 as part of the circumstances around a fall warning. In
`
`addition, the physical movement data obtained from Allum’s sensors can be
`
`interpreted (e.g., translated to a display format) based on the time of day
`
`information so that the time history of movement data can be displayed, e.g., as
`
`shown in Allum’s FIG. 3 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`APPLE-1008, FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`ARC renders obvious interpreting physical movement data
`based on a real-time clock
`In the alternative mapping of feature [20c] based on the combined teachings
`
`of Allum and Raymond, LoganTree argues that the “Raymond RT clock is not
`
`associated with the underlying ‘physical movement data’ because “the RT clock in
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Raymond only provides the time associated with user-collected data, that is, the
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`time at which the user manually records discomfort.” POR, 35. Again, LoganTree
`
`misunderstands or mischaracterizes Raymond.
`
`Raymond discloses that “a combination of sensed physiological data and
`
`subjective data entered by the patient” is collected. APPLE-1009, 2:17-29. “As
`
`the data is collected, it is time stamped, compressed (where appropriate) and
`
`uploaded to the database, labeled for the patient in question.” Id. Clearly,
`
`Raymond’s RT clock does not only provide the time associated with user-collected
`
`data. LoganTree provides no additional arguments against the mapping of ARC
`
`onto [20c].
`
`E. ARC renders obvious [2]
`As a preliminary matter, LoganTree acknowledges that Conlan discloses this
`
`claim. POR, 31 (“For the limited purpose of this ground, PO does not dispute that
`
`Conlan discloses this claim”). Accordingly, at least based on Conlan’s disclosure,
`
`ARC renders obvious [2].
`
`Separately, LoganTree argues that the “Allum device can never disclose this
`
`limitation [(claim 2)] because there is no computer involved in the uploading of
`
`operational parameters in Allum.” POR, 31. “Indeed, there is no computer
`
`disclosed in Allum at all.” Id.
`
`LoganTree’s assertions directly contradict Allum, which discloses that “[t]he
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`system processor 14 may be implemented as a conventional microprocessor based
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`computer system having computer memory 16, an operator's display unit 18, e.g.,
`
`a 10 standard 14-inch computer display console, a printer or plotter 20, and an
`
`operator's input device 22, such as a conventional computer keyboard.” APPLE-
`
`1008, 7:8-13, FIG. 1; APPLE-1003, ¶¶[131]-[134]. It is clear that devices, such as
`
`the operator’s display unit 18 and keyboard, are part of a computer that and are
`
`connected to Allum’s microprocessor 14 through at least one input/output port for
`
`downloading said data and uploading said operational parameters. Id.; Pet., 41-44.
`
`
`
`F. ARC renders obvious [3]
`LoganTree argues that “Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing
`
`that Allum discloses Claim 3” in part because “the Beadles eyewear lacks a
`
`necessary component of Allum eyewear: a monocular virtual imaging system” and
`
`“the Allum devices includes more than just the body sway sensors; it also includes
`
`the power source, microprocessor, memory, and glasses.” POR, 31-32. But
`
`LoganTree’s response fails to appreciate that Apple has asserted that claim 3 is
`
`obvious in view of ARC. Pet., 1, 45-46, and fails to respond to Petitioner’s
`
`evidence and arguments based on an obviousness ground.
`
`“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the
`
`importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. … it
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00040
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0041IP2
`
`
`
`
`often may be the case that market demand, rather