Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2022-00040 U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`_______________
`
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 1 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`LOGANTREE, LP
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2022-00040 U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`_______________
`
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 1 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
`A. Background ......................................................................................................................... 3
`B. Expert Qualifications and Credentials ................................................................................ 5
`Legal Framework ............................................................................................................... 12
`Opinion .............................................................................................................................. 16
`A. Background of the Technology ......................................................................................... 16
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................................... 21
`C. Apple’s Cited References .................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 2 of 28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`A. Background
`
`1. My name is Vijay K. Madisetti, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`LoganTree, LP (“LoganTree”) as a technical expert in the above-captioned case.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions in regards to the Patent
`
`Owner Response with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ’576 Patent”) in
`
`response to the IPR Petition submitted by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”). I understand that
`
`the Challenged Claims are claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25, 30-32, 36, 39-42, 45-51, 61-65,
`
`144, and 147. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`• Exhibit 1002: U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 Prosecution History
`
`(“Prosecution History”)
`
`• Exhibit 1006: Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,059,576 (“Reexamination Certificate”)
`
`• Exhibit 1007: Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“Reexamination
`
`History”)
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 3 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`• Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 5,778,882 (“Raymond”)
`
`• Exhibit 1010: U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 (“Conlan”)
`
`• Exhibit 1014: U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 (“Gesink”)
`
`• Exhibit 1100: Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Thomas Kenny
`
`(“Kenny Declaration”)
`
`• Exhibit 1101: U.S. Patent No. 4,962,469 (“Ono”)
`
`• Exhibit 1102: U.S. Patent No. 5,899,963 (“Hutchings”)
`
`• Exhibit 1103: U.S. Patent No. 5,941,837 (“Amano”)
`
`• Exhibit 1104: U.S. Patent No. 6,059,692 (“Hickman”)
`
`• Exhibit 1105: U.S. Patent No. 5,857,939 (“Kaufman”)
`
`• Exhibit 1106: U.S. Patent No. 5,808,903 (“Schiltz”)
`
`• Exhibit 1107: U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083 (“Richardson”)
`
`• Exhibit 1108: U.S. Patent No. 5,553,007 (“Brisson”)
`
`• Exhibit 1109: U.S. Patent No. 5,916,181 (“Socci”)
`
`• Exhibit 1110: U.S. Patent No. 5,593,431 (“Sheldon”)
`
`• Exhibit 1111: U.S. Patent No. 5,511,045 (“Sasaki”)
`
`• Exhibit 1112: U.S. Patent No. 4,387,437 (“Lowrey”)
`
`• Exhibit 1113: Warwick, “Trends and Limits in the ‘Talk Time’ of
`
`Personal Communicators,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 83, No. 4
`
`(April 1995) (“Warwick”)
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 4 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`• Paper 3: Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Institution Decision”)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Expert Qualifications and Credentials
`
`3. My qualifications
`
`to
`
`testify about
`
`the patent-in-suit, relevant
`
`technology, and the prior art are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix 1. My CV includes my educational background and
`
`work history.
`
`4.
`
`Briefly, I have over thirty years of experience as an electrical and
`
`computer engineer in industry, education, and consulting. I have served as an expert
`
`witness in intellectual property cases and other matters. A list of my prior testimony
`
`is included in my CV attached as Appendix 1.
`
`5.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. I received the Demetri Angelakos
`
`Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of California, Berkeley
`
`and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`6.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a Professor in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been active in the areas of wireless
`
`communications, sensors, internet of things (IoT), digital signal processing,
`
`integrated circuit design (analog & digital), software engineering, system-level
`
`design methodologies and tools, and software systems. I have been the principal
`
`investigator (“PI”) or co-PI in several active research programs in these areas,
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 5 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors,
`
`the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated
`
`Sensors Laboratory Program, and the United States Air Force Electronics Parts
`
`Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty Award and the NSF’s
`
`Research Initiation Award. I have been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons
`
`Terman Medal by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions
`
`to Electrical Engineering, including authoring a widely-used textbook in the design
`
`of VLSI digital signal processors.
`
`7.
`
`I have developed and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in
`
`hardware and software design for signal processing and wireless communication
`
`circuits at Georgia Tech for the past twenty years. I graduated more than 20 Ph.D.
`
`students that now work as professors or in technical positions around the world.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an active consultant to industry and various research
`
`laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) Lincoln
`
`Labs and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). I have founded
`
`three companies in the areas of embedded software, military chipsets involving
`
`imaging technology, and wireless communications. I have supervised the Ph.D.
`
`dissertations of over twenty engineers in the areas of computer engineering, sensors,
`
`signal processing, communications, rapid prototyping, and system-level design
`
`methodology, five of which have resulted in thesis prizes or paper awards.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 6 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`9. My consulting work for MIT Lincoln Labs involved high resolution
`
`imaging for defense applications, where I worked in the area of prototyping complex
`
`and specialized computing systems. My consulting work for Johns Hopkins Applied
`
`Physics Lab (“APL”) mainly involved localization of objects in image fields, where
`
`I worked on identifying targets in video and other sensor fields and identifying
`
`computer architectures and circuits for power and space-efficient designs.
`
`10.
`
`I have developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software and
`
`assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo-cancellation.
`
`11. The first of the companies I founded, VP Technologies, offers products
`
`in the area of semiconductor integrated circuits, including building computing
`
`systems for helicopter imaging systems for the United States Air Force. I remain a
`
`director of VP Technologies. The second of these companies, Soft Networks, LLC,
`
`offers software for multimedia and wireless computing platforms, including the
`
`development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-2 video streams and
`
`imaging codes for multimedia phones. The technology involved with the design,
`
`development, and implementation of the Intel set-top box included parsing the bit
`
`streams, decoding communications protocols, extracting image and video data, and
`
`then processing for subsequent display or storage. The third of these companies,
`
`Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding or decoding for
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 7 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`capturing high quality video at very low bit rates, with primary application for
`
`wireless video systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have been active in the area of 4G-related communications in several
`
`areas of technologies, including orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM)-multiple input multiple output (MIMO) communications systems for
`
`several years, and some of my publications in this area include “Frequency
`
`Dependent Space-Interleaving of MIMO OFDM Systems,” Proc. IEEE Radio and
`
`Wireless Conference (RAWCON ’03), 2003; “Embedded Alamouti Space Time
`
`Codes for High Rate and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. Of IEEE Asilomar
`
`Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes
`
`for Fast Decoding in Time Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications
`
`(2011).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored several books, including VLSI Digital
`
`Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital Signal Processing Handbook
`
`(CRC Press, 1998). I am Editor of the three-volume DSP Handbook set (Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals; Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards; and Volume 3: Wireless, Networking,
`
`Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing), which was
`
`published in 2010 by CRC Press in Boca Raton, Florida.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 8 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`14. Additional representative peer-reviewed publications in the area of
`
`wireless communications are the following: (i) Turkboylari, M. and Madisetti, V.K.,
`
`“Effect of Handoff Delay on System Performance of TDMA Cellular Systems,” 4th
`
`International Workshop, Mobile & Wireless Communication Network, pp. 411-415,
`
`2002; (ii) Jatunov, L. and Madisetti, V.K., “Computationally-Efficient SNR
`
`Estimation for Bandlimited Wideband CDMA Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
`
`Wireless Communications, Issue 12, pp. 3480-3491, December 2006, and (iii) N.
`
`Radia, Y. Zhang, M. Tatipamula, V. Madisetti, “Next Generation Applications on
`
`Cellular Networks: Trends, Challenges, and Solutions,” Proceedings on IEEE, vol.
`
`100, Issue 4, pp. 841-854, April 2012.
`
`15.
`
`I am knowledgeable and familiar with standards related to the wireless
`
`and telecommunications systems industry, and as shown in my CV, some of my
`
`papers describe the application of these standards in optimizing design and testing
`
`of these systems. I am also knowledgeable and familiar with microprocessor
`
`architecture and associated software and firmware design for wireless and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations. In addition, since 2017, I have been
`
`Georgia Tech’s official representative to the Third Generation Partnership Project
`
`(3GPP), a standards body responsible for the development of wireless standards. In
`
`this role, I represent European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 9 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`member Georgia Tech in several task forces for the development of 5G technology
`
`(including sensors) and will attend in-person meetings regarding the same.
`
`16.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks including wireless audio
`
`and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, like cell phones
`
`and Personal Digital Assistants. I have worked on designing systems that are
`
`efficient from a performance, size, weight, area, and thermal point of view. I have
`
`developed courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my
`
`lectures in advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship of
`
`the United States Department of Defense in the late 1990’s, are available for
`
`educational use at http://www.eda.org/rassp. These lectures have been used by
`
`several U.S. and international universities as part of their course work. Some of my
`
`recent publications in the area of design of wireless communications systems and
`
`associated protocols are listed in my CV.
`
`17.
`
`In conjunction with a leading telecom vendor in Asia, through a joint
`
`venture called Soft Networks (“SN”), LLC in Atlanta in the late 1990’s and early
`
`2000’s, I collaborated with a team of engineers to support mobile and wireless
`
`services offerings in India. These involved the design and development of
`
`micropayment services for mobile phones, design of smartphones, soft switches, and
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 10 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`telecom customer billing and fraud detection algorithms that included establishment
`
`of secure sessions and privileged access to customer account and billing data.
`
`18.
`
`I have proposed several draft proposals for standards to the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) in the area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming
`
`over the internet, including, “A Transport Layer Technology for Improving QoS of
`
`Networked Multimedia Applications,”
`
`IETF Draft,
`
`July
`
`25,
`
`2002
`
`(http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-madisettiargyriou-qos-sctp-00.pdf); “Voice & Video
`
`Over Mobile IP Networks,” IETF Draft, May 2002, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
`
`madisetti-argyriou-voice-video-mip-00); and “Enhancements to ECRTP with
`
`Applications to Robust Header Compression for Wireless,” January 2003, IETF
`
`Draft, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-madisetti-rao-suresh-rohc-00).
`
`19.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest
`
`grade of membership of the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over
`
`300,000 electrical and electronics engineers, with only one-tenth of one percent
`
`(0.1%) of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each year.
`
`Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 11 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`Dissertation Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF Research Initiation Award in 1990.
`
`I was Technical Program Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and the IEEE
`
`Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989 I was recognized
`
`with the Ira Kay IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper presented at the IEEE
`
`Annual Simulation Symposium.
`
`21.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $450/hour for each hour of
`
`services that I provide in connection with this case, including time I spend
`
`consulting, writing this report, giving deposition testimony and testifying. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the content of my testimony and is not
`
`affected by the outcome of the case. If called to testify as to the contents of this
`
`report, I can and would testify truthfully and competently.
`
`II. Legal Framework
`
`22.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that the claim terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) in question at the time of the invention as set forth by the Phillips
`
`standard. I have been informed that the Phillips standard dictates that claim
`
`construction begins with the claim language itself, further informed by the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 12 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`23. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on
`
`an invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of obviousness may
`
`be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In determining whether prior
`
`art references render a claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts consider
`
`the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness. In addition, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be
`
`done through the eyes of one of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
`
`24.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that this Board and U.S. courts allow a technical
`
`expert to consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one
`
`of skill in the art would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade
`
`publications,
`
`journal articles,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and
`
`documentation, texts describing competitive technologies, requests for comment
`
`published by standard setting organizations, and materials from industry
`
`conferences.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the United States Supreme Court’s most recent
`
`statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was stated in
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 13 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of an explicit
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a
`
`sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. Thus, the
`
`teaching-suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field
`
`at the time the invention was made; (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems; and (3) the sophistication of the technology in
`
`the field.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 14 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been informed that in order to rely on a prior art reference
`
`in an obviousness analysis, the prior art reference must be analogous to the claimed
`
`invention. I also understand that a prior art reference is shown to be analogous to the
`
`claimed invention if it is shown to be either (1) in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor
`
`(even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the field of endeavor is determined by looking at the
`
`claims and specification of the challenged patent.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that for a prior art reference to be “reasonably pertinent”
`
`to the problem, it must have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his or her problem. To do this, it is necessary to consider the problem
`
`faced by the inventor, as reflected—either explicitly or implicitly—in the patent’s
`
`specification.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 15 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; and (h) teaching away from the invention
`
`in the prior art. I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`III. Opinion
`
`
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`32. The ’576 Patent is broadly directed to a portable, self-contained device
`
`for monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity. EX1001, 2:6-9. The
`
`device includes a movement sensor for measuring data associated with unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of the movement. Id.
`
`at 4:37-48. The movement sensor is electronically connected to a microprocessor
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 16 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`which receives the signals generated by the movement sensor for analysis and
`
`subsequent processing. Id. at 4:52-55. The microprocessor is connected to a real-
`
`time clock to provide date and time information to the microprocessor. Id. at 5:35-
`
`37. In the ’576 patent, user-programmable configuration information can be entered
`
`by a user, and the user-programmed operation parameters are uploaded to the
`
`microprocessor for use by the microprocessor. Id. at 5:59-6:9, 7:6-11.
`
`33. Using the microprocessor, the ’576 patent interprets the physical
`
`movement data measured by the sensor using the user-programmed operation
`
`parameters and the real-time clock. Id. at 5:40-47. The ’576 patent stores the physical
`
`movement data in a memory. Id. at 5:57-59. The microprocessor detects a user-
`
`defined event using the physical movement data and the user-programmed operation
`
`parameters. Id. at 5:40-47. The microprocessor also stores 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. Id.
`
`34.
`
` Figure 4 of the ’576 patent represents a high-level block diagram of
`
`components of device.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 17 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`
`35.
`
`I have reviewed the patent, its file history, the institution decision, and
`
`all its claims, the alleged prior art references, and provide here the representative
`
`Claim 1 (with annotation) to provide some technical bases for my opinions in this
`
`
`
`declaration:
`
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts
`during physical activity, said device comprising:
`(1a): a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals
`indicative of said movement;
`(1b): a power source;
`(1c): a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said
`power source,
`(1d): said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and
`responding to said movement data based on user-defined operational
`parameters,
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 18 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`(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
`(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;
`(1g): at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device; and
`(1h): a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`(1i): memory for storing said movement data; and
`(1j): an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling
`the occurrence of user-defined events;
`(1k): wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of
`said movement.
`I have created a version of Figure 4 in a manner that is useful in
`
`36.
`
`interpreting the claims and the prior art of record by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”). This figure is shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 19 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`
`
`
`37. The claimed limitation 1a requires that the sensor 30 measure data
`
`associated with unrestricted movement of the body part. This data is represented by
`
`A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure A1.
`
`38. The claimed limitation 1d requires that a microprocessor 32 interpret
`
`this measured data. This interpretation is performed by the microprocessor 32 based
`
`on user 34 defined operational parameters and the real-time clock (RTC) 46. The
`
`RTC provides the time stamps as shown in the diagram A1, corresponding to the
`
`data A, B, C and D, respectively. The time stamp TS_A corresponds to data A, for
`
`example.
`
`39. The claimed limitation 1e requires detecting an event by the
`
`microprocessor 32 (not by the user) in the measured data from the interpretation, the
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 20 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`detection based on at least one of the user-defined operational parameters and the
`
`real-time clock. For the purposes of the example of Figure A1, I refer to this event
`
`as that corresponding to data A (interpreted as being associated with time stamp
`
`TS_A). The data values B, C, and D and their associated time stamps do not generate
`
`(at the microprocessor) a detected event, in this example. The event corresponding
`
`to A is denoted by a diamond shape in red along with its associated time stamp TS_A
`
`in memory 50.
`
`40. The claimed limitation 1f requires that this event and associated time
`
`stamp TS_A be also stored in memory 50, as shown in the example of Figure A1.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the prior
`
`art of record and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the
`
`claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`42.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a POSITA of the ’576 Patent at the
`
`time of the claimed invention, which counsel has informed me is at or before
`
`November 21, 1997, I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education
`
`and experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention, (2) the
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 21 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`sophistication of the technology, (3) the types of problems encountered in the field,
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`43.
`
`I am familiar with the sensor signal processing and communication art
`
`pertinent to the ’576 Patent. I am also aware of the state of the art at the time the
`
`application resulting in the ’576 Patent was filed. Based on the technologies
`
`disclosed in the ’576 Patent, I believe that a POSITA would include someone who
`
`had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering or
`
`equivalent, and two years of experience in embedded signal processing and/or
`
`systems, or equivalent. Moreover, I recognize that someone with more technical
`
`education but less experience could have also met this standard. I believe that I
`
`possessed and exceeded such experience and knowledge before and at the date of
`
`the claimed invention and that I am qualified to opine on the ’576 Patent.
`
`44. For the purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field before the claimed
`
`invention of the ’576 Patent.
`
`C. Apple’s Cited References
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, pg. 22 of 28
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2001)
`45. Allum is a diagnostic and rehabilitory tool that measures postural sway
`
`of a human subject using displacement or motion transducers using displacement or
`
`motion transducers and provides feedback to the subject
`
`46. Essentially, Allum is a full-body, posture-correcting device that detects
`
`motion using angular rate transducers attached to the subject’s body, then relays that
`
`information to a microprocessor which exports the data to the device’s various
`
`feedback systems.
`
`47. One purpose of Allum is to monitor subjects who are in danger of
`
`falling.
`
`48. Allum does not teach or suggest to a POSITA that it should be modified
`
`to include Conlan’s pushbuttons for user input because the design scheme of Allum
`
`neither requires, nor provides a means for, user input about his or her own stability
`
`condition.
`
`49. A POSITA would have read Allum to suggest that a designer should
`
`refrain from including user inputs for at least two reasons. First, the patients who
`
`would use the Allum device are inherently “pr
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
